User Note: Double Underlined With Turquoise Highlight

Document: “Code Requirements for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures for the Containment of Refrigerated Liquefied Gases
(ACI 376) and Commentary”

Public Discussion Period: March 1, 2010 – April 17, 2010
ACI to Chair Apr 20 Draf
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9
No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Pg# Line # Public Comment Committee Response Editorial or
Name Approved by
quorum vote
USER NOTE This is an update of the original downloaded from
ACI website; see April 20, 2010 Jesse Bournay email
to NKO. Changes include:
1. Verification of page and line numbers shown in
new columns 5-6.
2. Comments 713-720 are new.
3. Clarifications are shown in bold purple italics,
double underlined with turquoise highlight.
4. Column 8, "Committee Response," is approved
committee response.
5. Column 9, "Editorial or Approved by quorum
vote" Agreed editorial in Pittsburgh, or Webinar,
Web Ballot recorded vote
1. Hoang, Kim for Chevron Gen Gen Gen Gen No reference is provided in the document regarding Editorial 2010.10.04
Team seismic base isolation as an acceptable option for Webinar
concrete tanks
2. Hoang, Kim for Chevron Gen Gen Gen Gen It is recommended using both customary and SI Editorial 2010.10.04
Team units in parenthesis – similar to ASCE 7-05, AISC 360- Webinar
05, IBC 2006, and other current standards and ACI publishes metric and inch-pound
codes. This code is likely to be referred to, specified, versions
and used overseas for various LNG projects, and
therefore it should be easily applicable to overseas
locations. Using both units will make it current, and
will help avoiding potential mistakes and confusion if
conversion is needed.
3. Krstulovic, Neven Gen Gen Gen Gen The Code needs to add marking provisions to Discuss in Pittsburgh to develop 2010.10.24
identify standards by which the inner and the outer appropriate wording. Pittsburgh
containers were designed (e.g., name plates similar 2010.10.04 Webinar response:
to what is defined in API 620). Agree
NK #20 (Gap analysis #)
Pittsburgh response:
Copy plate text from API 620 as a
1 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Document: “Code Requirements for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures for the Containment of Refrigerated Liquefied Gases (ACI 376) and Commentary”
Name Approved by
quorum vote
starting point. If the inner tank is
concrete, special plate from ACI 376
is required. If the outer tank is
concrete, special plate from ACI 376
is required.
Garrison and Hoptay will propose
text that will be balloted.
4. Nahlawi, Khaled Gen Gen 6 41 Please, create an index for this standard. Response 4, 7: Current ACI policy 2010.10.04
does not produce indexes for its new Webinar
documents.
5. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 1 13 2 1 This document should include the keywords Editorial 2010.10.04
“containment (double, full, primary)” since this Webinar
document was created to fulfill a request by NFPA
59A to define the basis for concrete containment as
discussed in the Introduction.
6. Krstulovic, Neven 2 9 2 9 Add the following text to the Introduction section to Hoff will put this comment in the 2010.10.24
clarify background and to be consistent with issues introduction and the comment Pittsburgh
covered in Introduction sections of other ACI Code remains editorial.
documents:
The code and commentary includes excerpts from

ACI 318-** and ACI 350-** that are pertinent to ACI
376. The commentary discusses some of the
considerations of committee ACI 376 in developing
“Code Requirements for Design and Construction of
Concrete Structures for the Containment of
Refrigerated Liquefied Gases (RLG) (ACI 376-**),”
hereinafter called the Code. Emphasis is given to
the explanation of provisions that may be unfamiliar
to users of the standard. Comments on specific
provisions are made under the corresponding
chapter and section numbers of the code and
commentary.
This commentary is not intended to provide a
2 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
complete historical background concerning the
development of the Code, nor is it intended to
provide a detailed summary of the studies and
research data reviewed by the committee in
formulating the provisions of the code. However,
references to some of the research data are
provided for those who wish to study the
background material in depth.
“Code Requirements for “Design and Construction of

Concrete Structures for the Containment of
Refrigerated Liquefied Gases (RLG)” may be used as
a part of a legally adopted code and, as such, must
differ in form and substance from documents that
provide detailed specifications, recommended
practice, complete design procedures, or design
aids.
Requirements more stringent than the Code

provisions may be desirable for unusual structures.
This Code and this commentary cannot replace
sound engineering knowledge, experience, and
judgment. A code for design and construction states
the minimum requirements necessary to provide for
public health and safety. ACI 376 is based on this
principle. For any structure, the Owner and the
Engineer may require the quality of materials and
construction to be higher than the minimum
requirements necessary to provide serviceability and
to protect the public as stated in the Code. Lower
standards, however, are not permitted.
ACI 376 has no legal status unless it is adopted by

regulatory bodies. Where the Code has not been
adopted, it may serve as a reference to good
3 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
practice. The Code provides a means of establishing
minimum standards for acceptance of design and
construction by a legally appointed official or his
designated representatives. The Code and
commentary are not intended for use in settling
disputes between the Owner, Engineer, contractor,
or their agents, subcontractors, material suppliers,
or testing agencies. Therefore, the Code cannot
define the contract responsibility of each of the
parties in usual construction. General references
requiring compliance with ACI 376 in the job
specifications should be avoided, since the
contractor is rarely in a position to accept
responsibility for design details or construction
requirements that depend on a detailed knowledge
of the design. Generally, the drawings,
specifications, and contract documents should
contain all of the necessary requirements to ensure
compliance with the Code. In part, this can be
accomplished by reference to specific code sections
in the job specifications. Other ACI publications,
such as ACI 301, “Specifications for Structural
Concrete,” are written specifically for use as contract
documents for construction.
7. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 6 41 6 41 Index is still not completed. Response 4, 7: 2010.10.04
Team See response 4. Webinar
8. CB&I 7 2 7 2 Does this code apply to the foundation slabs/pile Section 1.1 explicitly says that the 2010.10.24
caps for double steel tanks? Assuming it does not, Code is for concrete structures and Pittsburgh
clearly state this in section 1.1. the incorporation of comments as to
what it does not include is generally
not appropriate.
ADD: Notwithstanding, the

principals listed herein may be
applicable to double-steel tanks on
4 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
concrete foundations subject to the
approval of owner.
9. CB&I 7 4 7 4 Editorial: Change wording from “ … construction of Agree. 2010.10.04
concrete and prestressed concrete structures…” to “ Webinar
… construction of reinforced concrete and
prestressed concrete structures…”
10. American Petroleum 7 5 7 5 R4.8 Suggest perhaps revising the -270F limit to Agree to change to -325 2010.10.04
Institute -325 degrees F (for liquid oxygen). We note that Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task there are concrete tanks storing liquid oxygen. Also
Group note that future API stds are making -325F the limit.
11. CB&I 7 6-8 7 6-8 1.1.1: Add statement that only material selection Agree but the statement should be in 2010.10.24
criteria are included for the Thermal Corner the commentary Section R1.1.1 Pittsburgh
Protection (TCP) of a secondary tank in this
specification. The design parameters, analysis Agreed it remains editorial and Hoff
methods, acceptance criteria (stress or strain limits), will address comment.
detailing and construction requirements for are not
included in this document.
12. CB&I 7 10 7 10 Editorial: Change wording from “Typically, concrete Agree 2010.10.04
and prestressed concrete structures…” to “Typically, Webinar
reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete
structures…”
13. American Petroleum 8 4-14 8 4-14 R1.1.1 - These lines with its very specific list of Agreed it remains editorial and Hoff 2010.10.24
Institute considerations for a liner look very out of place in will address comment. Pittsburgh
Refrigerated Tank Task this basic scope section at the front of the
Group document. Typo?
14. Blanchard, J. for NFPA 8 4 8 4 Liner design information is out of place in a scope Agreed it remains editorial and Hoff 2010.10.24
59A Task Group commentary section. will address comment. Pittsburgh
15. CB&I 8 4 8 4 This should be a new section. Define the purpose of Agreed it remains editorial and Hoff 2010.10.24
the liner, and state if this is for a secondary will address comment. Pittsburgh
containment liner.
Define “extra gas pressures”.
Define the fire resistance. Does this apply to

“internal fire” per 5.1.14”
5 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Define resistance to blast and impact for an internal

liner. Is this meant to apply to “internal explosion”
per 5.1.14 only (since perforation of concrete is
intended to be prohibited for external explosion
impact forces)?
Define term “sacrificial liner”: For example: A

sacrificial liner is defined as steel plates in contact
with the outer containment slab, wall and roof of a
full containment structure that is gas tight in
operation only, but unable to provide either gas or
liquid containment when subjected to low product
temperatures (as in the case of an inner tank leak)
due to its brittleness at low temperature.
16. Blanchard, J. for NFPA 9 14 9 14 The QA section leaves too much to the contractor. Should conform to the project 2010.10.04
59A Task Group More specific requirements to be contained in the documents. Code is not specific but Webinar
QA and QC program need to be defined. says that you need a plan.
Also, there should be a defined criteria for the
experience of the inspectors.
17. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 9 20 7 18 Delete the last sentence beginning on line 18. The Disagree 2010.10.04
seismic design loadings and acceptance criteria Webinar
based on this document assume accepted
definitions of primary and secondary containments.
Since the membrane tank configuration does not fit
the definition of either type of containment,
reference to using portions of this code is not
appropriate.
18. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 10 1 8 4 - 14 R1.1.1 - the paragraph about the design of the liner Agreed it remains editorial and Hoff 2010.10.24
Team seems to be too detailed and out of context for this will address comment. Pittsburgh
part of the code.
19. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 10 4-14 10 4-14 Editorial: This portion of the commentary is not Agreed it remains editorial and Hoff 2010.10.24
JH[8] related to the code section. These lines need to be will address comment. Pittsburgh
relocated to the appropriate Code section.
20. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 10 22 8 22 Editorial: “In the this system, the….” Agree 2010.10.04
6 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
JH[8] Webinar
21. CB&I 11 15 11 15 Section 2.1 Notation – Review and revise all chapter  Revisions are in column to the left 2010.10.24
references accordingly. for readability. Pittsburgh
Debbie provided additional

comment to Hoff. Unanimously
REVISED REFERENCES: agreed it remains editorial and Hoff
1..Delete ac = coefficient of thermal contraction/ will address comment.
expansion, Chapter 6
2..Change B = blast, Chapters 4, 6 5, 7
3..Change c = specific heat, Chapter 7 6
4..Delete C = cool-down, Chapter 6
5..Change C = penetration coefficient, Chapter 7 8
6..Change D d = projectile diameter, Chapter 7 8
7..Change D = tank diameter, Chapter 9 10
8..Change D = dead loads, or related internal
moments and forces, Chapters 4, 6 5,7
9..Change E = environmental load, Chapter 6 7
10..Change Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete,
Chapters 1, 7 2,6
11..Change Eo = operating basis earthquake (OBE),
Chapters 4, 6 2,5,6,7,8,10,Appendix B (same as
OBE below)
12..Change ES = safe shutdown earthquake (SSE)
product (service), Chapters 4, 6
2,5,6,7,8,10,Appendix B (same as SSE below)
13..Change fc′ = specified compressive strength of
concrete, Chapters 5, 7, Appendix B
6,8,Appendix C
14..Change fci = specified compressive strength of
concrete at time of initial prestress, Chapter 5 6
15..Delete fct′ = specified tensile strength of
concrete, Chapter 6
16..Change F = loads due to weight and pressure of
fluids with well-defined densities and
7 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
controllable maximum heights, or related
internal moments and forces, Chapters 4, 6 5,7
17..Change Fs = foundation settlement, Chapter 4 5
18..Change Ft = maximum hydrostatic load due to
test water, Chapter 4 5
19..Change Fv = vertical earth pressure, Chapter 4 5
20..Change g = gravitational constant, Chapter 1 6
21..Delete h = concrete thickness, Chapter 7
22..Change hd = minimum dome thickness to resist
buckling, Chapter 7 8
23..Change H = heat radiation from adjacent fire,
Chapters 4, 6 5,7
24..Change k = intrinsic coefficient of permeability,
Chapter 1 and 7 6
25..Change K=coefficient of hydraulic conductivity,
Chapter 1 6
26..Change L = live load (primarily snow; also:
temporary equipment, roof live load), Chapters
4, 6, 7 5,7
27..Change Lcn = live load effects resulting from
construction activities, Chapter 6 7
28..Change Lcm = live load effects resulting from
commissioning activities, Chapter 6 7
29..Change mp = projectile mass, lb, Chapter 6 8
30..Change Mi = missile impact, Chapters 4, 6 5,7
31..Change Ni(Si) = number of cycles to failure of a
constant stress reversal, Si, Appendix B C
32..Change Pd = internal pressure (service), Chapter
45
33..Change Pe = accidental internal overpressure
(applies to full-containment outer wall and
domed
roof), Chapter 4 5
34..Change Pf = final prestressing (at service load),
Chapters 4, 6 5,7
8 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
35..Change Pi = initial prestressing (at transfer),
Chapters 4, 6 5,7
36..Delete Pp = piping load, Chapter 4
37..Change Pt = internal pressure (test), Chapter 4 5
38..Change Pu = factored axial force; to be taken as
positive for compression and negative for
tension, Chapter 7 8
39..Change Pv = accidental vacuum pressure (applies
to full-containment outer wall only), Chapter 4
5
40..Change rd = nominal radius of curvature of the
dome, Chapter 7 11
41..Change rimp= average radius of curvature of
dome in an imperfection region, Chapter 7 8
42..Change R = roof loads (appurtenances and
suspended ceiling), Chapter 4 5
43..Change R = force reduction factor, Chapter 7 8
44..Change R = tank radius, Chapter 10 11
45..Change T = cumulative effect of temperature,
creep, shrinkage and differential settlement,
Chapters 4, 65,7
46..Change Tc = loads associated with the creep of
concrete, Chapter 67
47..Change Tds = loads associated with differential
settlement, Chapter 67
48..Change Te = temperature and temperature
differential due to sudden cooling, Chapters 4,
65,7
49..Change To = temperature and temperature
differential at service loads, Chapter 4 5
50..Change To = internal moments and forces caused
by temperature and moisture distributions
within concrete structure as a result of
commissioning, normal operating, or
decommissioning conditions, Chapter 67
9 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
51..Change Ts = loads associated with shrinkage of
concrete, Chapter 67
52..Change v = projectile speed, Chapter 7 8
53.. Change w = concrete density, Chapter 7 8
54..Change W = wind, Chapters 4, 65,7
55..Change Qa = pile safe design load, Chapters 1, 9
2, 10
56..Change Qr = ultimate capacity of single piles,
Chapter 9 10
57..Change ßc = buckling strength reduction factor
due to creep, material nonlinearity, and
cracking of concrete, Chapter 7 8
58..Change ßimp = buckling strength reduction
factor due to imperfections, Chapter 7 8
59..Change ρ = density of fluid, Chapter 1 6
60..Change  = strength reduction factor, Chapters 1,
6, 7 7, 8
61..Change qu = ultimate bearing capacity, Chapter
9 10
62..Change μ = Poisson’s ratio, or dynamic viscosity
of fluid, Chapters 1, 7 Chapter 6
22. Matrix Service (Vater) 12 7 12 7 “The location of all permanent materials shall be No Change. 2010.10.04
traceable to the source documents…” What is Webinar
intended to be the extent to which this requirement The extent to which traceability
is to be enforced? For example, does the reinforcing should be enforced is the
steel location need to be traceable to the certificate responsibility of the owner and
of conformance? Additional definition needs to be should be included in the project
provided in the code section to eliminate specifications not in the Code.
interpretation of traceability.
23. CB&I 12 8 12 8 Editorial: Change fci to f’ci. Agree. Editorial 2010.10.04
Webinar
24. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 14 10 & 11-14 all Editorial: All chapter references should be checked. Agree. 2010.10.04
21 JH[same Chapter 1 is the introduction and does not contain Webinar
] these variables. Response 21 and 24
10 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
25. Krstulovic, Neven 15 22-23 15 22-23 To provide clear guidance on the method for Discuss in Pittsburgh any conflict
calculating crack widths, add the following text: between Oct 4 Webinar and Gap
Analysis.
“calculated crack width—crack width calculated
using a concrete constitutive model defined in 2010.10.04 Webinar response:
87.1.1.8. The Eurocode 2 is recommended for Agreed to leave it as is and correct
determining calculated crack widths, in which case reference to 8.1.1.8.
the calculated crack widths are characteristic and
not mean calculated crack widths. NK #4 (Gap analysis #)
Correct reference is 8.1.1.8, and not

7.1.1.8. See item 2 in
2010.04.01response to 2010.03.31
J.B. email.
Pittsburgh Comment:
Agree. For future action. Changes to
be provided by Hjoreset.
26. CB&I 16 7 16 1 The “process of testing” is precommissioning, not Present definition is sufficient and it 2010.10.24
commissioning. was decided that no new definition Pittsburgh
is needed. Unanimously agreed it
remains editorial and no change is
needed.
27. CB&I 16 12 16 6 Use “holding” instead of “keeping”? Agree 2010.10.04
Webinar
28. CB&I 17 8 17 1 Suggest a differentiation between “low Discuss in Pittsburgh where the new
temperature” and “cryogenic, with low temp being definition for "low temperature" is
down to -60°F to be added. Note that it isn't
needed if it doesn't occur in the
text.
2010.10.04 Webinar response:

Agree. Add new definition as given.
Response 28, 29. Agree.
11 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Add a new definition as follows: low
temperatures — temperatures
below freezing to - 60o F. Change
cryogenic to read “being or related
to very low temperatures from –
60o F. down to –325 °F in the
production, storage, and handling of
refrigerated liquefied gas.”
Pittsburgh comment:
Unanimously proposed to leave
document as is and definition of
"low temperature" will be balloted
as new business.
29. CB&I 17 10 17 3 Differentiate “low temperature reinforcement” 2010.10.04 Webinar response: Same
as response 28.
Response 28, 29.

See response 28.
Pittsburgh comment:
Unanimously proposed to leave
document as is and definition of
"low temperature" will be balloted
as new business.
30. CB&I 17 14 17 7 Warmup is first, then purge out of service Change definition to “the process of 2010.10.04
the purging and warm-up of the Webinar
tank so it can be taken out of
service.
31. Matrix Service 17 15 15 9 Suggest the following revision to the definition of Disagree. Leave as is. 2010.10.04
(Oberman) boil-off: “ boil-off – process of evaporation to Webinar
remove heat from the refrigerated liquid”
32. CB&I 17 16 17 9 Add “maximum” before the word “pressure”. Disagree. Leave as is. 2010.10.04
12 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Webinar
33. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 17 22 15 16 Does this definition only apply to LNG tankers, or Agree. Change LNG to RLG 2010.10.04
Reference to should the more generic term RLG be used? Webinar
boat/vessel impact??
34. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 18 6 15 23 Editorial: Calculated crack width is not defined in Has been corrected. 2010.10.04
JH[same section 7.1.1.8 should be section 8.1.1.8. Webinar
] Correct reference is 8.1.1.8
This is item 2 in April 1, 2009 email
to ACI.
Also see response 25.

35. CB&I 18 14 18 7 Suggest some definition or boundaries for “limited Disagree 2010.10.04
damage” Webinar
36. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 18 18 16 12 R1.1 states “This code is not applicable to the design Agree. Change to ““containment, 2010.10.04
of membrane tanks” as such membrane tanks primary – part of a single, double or Webinar
should not be included in the definition of primary full containment or membrane tank
containment. Suggest the following revision; that contains liquid during normal
“containment, primary – part of a single double or operation. (See also containment)”
full containment tank that contains liquid during
normal operation. (See also containment)”
37. Matrix Service 19 14 17 7 Suggest the following revision to the definition of Disagree 2010.10.04
(Oberman) decommissioning: “decommissioning – the process Webinar
of purging the tank out of service, and the
subsequent warm-up and introduction of air.”
38. American Petroleum 19 15 19 9-10 2.2.1 The definition of “liner” seems too narrow. Change to: “liner – metallic or other 2010.10.04
Institute Why only on the inside of a wall? Also in referring barrier systems on either side of a Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task only to outer tank it excludes primary container primary or secondary containment
Group liners which are referenced in 6.2.3. structure impervious to liquid,
vapor, and water vapor.”
39. Widianto 19 15-16 19 9-10 The definition needs to be modified because: See response 38. 2010.10.04
a. ACI 376 discusses liner on both inner and outer Webinar
tank
b. Liners can also possibly be installed on the outside
13 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
of outer tank
Perhaps, the following definition can be used: Liner -

metallic plate installed against the concrete tank,
impervious to product vapor and water vapor.
40. CB&I 20 10 20 3 The definition states “(see settlement, long-term)”, Editorial: delete line 3 on page 20 2010.10.04
but there is no definition for “settlement, long- Settlement, long term; occurs afer Webinar
term”. Add definition for settlement. the inflection point in the log time-
void curve when the curve becomes
a straight line
41. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 21 12 19 6 Editorial: Revise back to definition that was sent to Agree 2010.10.04
JH[same TAC: “ An instrument for measuring angles of slope, Webinar
] tilt, or inclination of an object with respect to
gravity”
42. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 21 15 19 9-10 A liner does not only include plate that is installed See response 38. 2010.10.04
against the inside surface of the concrete but can Webinar
also be integral with the concrete such as a free
standing wall liner or roof liner. Definition should be
revised to include this option; “metallic plate
installed against or integral with the inside of the
concrete outer tank…”
43. Matrix Service 21 17 19 11 Suggest the following revision to the definition of Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
(Oberman) liquefied gas: liquefied gas (gas, liquefied) – a Webinar
substance that exists in a gaseous state at room Change as follows:
temperature and atmospheric pressure standard
pressure and temperature (STP) that has been liquefied gas (gas, liquefied)—a
converted to a liquid by cooling and increasing substance that exists in a gaseous
pressure a liquefaction process.” state at room temperature and
atmospheric pressure standard
pressure and temperature (STP) (a
temperature of 60 F and a pressure
of 14.7 psia) that has been
converted to a liquid by cooling and
increasing pressure a liquefaction
refrigeration process.
14 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
See responses 47 and 48.
44. Matrix Service 22 3 19 19 The Load Combination Table 5.1 defines only normal Agree. 2010.12.16
(Pullinger) and abnormal loads in the table but the definition Webinar
for accidental loads includes some that are listed For future action:
under abnormal loads. Categorization of the loads
should be consistent.
45. CB&I 23 2 22 15-16 Change “outer tank” to “outer tank corner joint” Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
Webinar
Change as follows:
thermal corner protection (TCP)—

insulated and liquid tight system to
protect the outer tank corner joint
from thermal shock.
46. CB&I 23 8 22 22-23 “vapor barrier” and “product vapor barrier” are not Agree. 2010.12.16
always equivalent Webinar
For future action:
47. Matrix Service 23 11 21 2 Suggest the following revision to the definition of Agree 2010.12.16
(Oberman) refrigerated liquefied gases: “refrigerated liquefied Webinar
gases (RLG) - matter a substance that occurs exists in See Response 43
a gaseous state at standard temperature and
pressure (STP) and that has been liquefied by a
refrigeration process.”
48. Matrix Service 24 14 21 3 Add the following definition after this line: “standard Agree 2010.12.16
(Oberman) temperature and pressure – A temperature of 60 F Webinar
and a pressure of 14.7 psia.” See Response 43
49. CB&I 25 13 25 4 Editorial: Remove quote marks ate end of sentence. Agree 2010.10.24
Pittsburgh
50. CB&I 27 8 26 22 Definition unclear. Reword: “a method of member Agree. Editorial 2010.12.16
proportioning based on ensuring that the design Webinar
strength (nominal strength x strength reduction Change as follows:
factor, ф) is larger than the required strength
(service load x load factor). strength design (design, strength)—
15 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
a method of member proportioning
based on
ensuring that the design strength
(nominal strength x strength
reduction factor, ф) obtained by
reducing the nominal strength is
larger than the required strength
(service load x load factor). obtained
by applying load factors to service
loads.
51. CB&I 28 8 27 22 Editorial: Add the word “tensile” before the word Disagree 2010.10.24
“stress”. Pittsburgh
52. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 29 3 28 17 CPT – shall be Cone penetration test. Response 52, 53: agree 2010.10.24
Team Pittsburgh
53. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 31 3 28 17 Editorial: cone penetration test Response 52, 53: agree 2010.10.24
JH[same Pittsburgh
]
54. CB&I 32 8 31 18 3.1: Refer to sections of ACI350, which are integral Disagree. 2010.12.20
part of this Code (similar to references to API620, Web Ballot
NPFA 59A, etc…). The specific portions of API 620,
For example a cross-reference to section 3.8 of NPFA 59A, etc. are intentionally
ACI350 will cover missed ASTM reference standards referenced so as to exclude the
like C33, C595 etc… remainder of those references that
are not germane to this Code. That
is not the case for ACI 350.
55. American Petroleum 32 15-19 32 2-6 3.1 The list of portions of API 620 applied in ACI 376 Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Institute is too short. Several topics in addition to those Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task named are referenced to API 620 in various places in See Response 57
Group ACI 376. For example; Steel plate in composite
action (4.8), allowable stresses and joint efficiencies American Petroleum Institute
(6.9.1), welding and testing of weldments (6.9.2), Those portions of “Design and
and weldment details (9.6.1). Construction of Large, Welded, Low-
Pressure Storage Tanks, Eleventh
Edition including Amendments,
2008” (API 620) of the American
Petroleum Institute dealing with tank
16 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
settlements (Appendix C), metal
classifications for nonstructural
metal barriers (Appendix Q), and
welding procedures for primary
components (Appendix R), steel
plate in composite action, allowable
stresses and joint efficiencies,
welding and testing of weldments,
and weldment details are declared
to be part of this Code as if fully set
forth herein.
56. American Petroleum 32 16 32 2-6 3.1 I understand that ACI 376 must reference the Response 55, 56, 57 2011.02.18
Institute 2008 version of API 620 since it is the currently Withdrawn Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task published version. But note that a new version of
Group 620 will be published soon and will fit with 376
much better. Perhaps an ACI 376 revised edition can
follow fairly soon and update this reference.
57. American Petroleum 32 17-18 32 4-5 3.1 API 620 App Q at 2008 does not address Agree. Deleted in this Code version. 2010.12.20
Institute classification of nonstructural metal barriers. API is Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task incorporating this into next edition. For future action.
Group
Also see Response 55
58. CB&I 33 4-7 32 14-17 3.1: Similar to the way this code handles references Disagree. 2010.12.20
to API620 or NFPA 59A refer to the exact sections of Web Ballot
AWS, which are to be an integral part of this See response to 54.
standard, instead of just stating that AWS
requirements toward welder's qualification are set
forth…
59. CB&I 33 18 33 5 3.1: The standard Number for “General Rules and Agree 2010.10.24
Rules for Buildings” is EN 1992-1-1. Change “BS EN Pittsburgh
1992-1” to “BS EN 1992-1-1”.
60. CB&I 34 1-6 34 1-6 3.1: Same comment as for AWS. Disagree. 2010.12.20
Similar to the way this code handles references to Web Ballot
API620 or NFPA 59A refer to the exact sections of EN See response to 54.
14620-3, which are to be an integral part of this
17 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
standard, instead of just stating that EN
requirements toward such and such are set forth…
61. CB&I 34 17-20 34 17-20 3.1: Same comment as for AWS and EN 14620. Disagree. 2010.12.20
Refer to the exact sections of MNL-116-99, which Web Ballot
are to be an integral part of this standard, instead of See response to 54.
just stating that MNL-116-99 requirements toward
precast piles dimensional tolerances are set forth
62. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 36 4 34 13-14 Should NFPA 59A reference the latest version 2009? Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
National Fire Protection Association
Sections 8.2.5 dealing with insulation
materials, 8.4.2.6 dealing with
nonstructural metallic barriers,
8.2.2.5 dealing with levels of ground
motion, and 8.8.7 dealing with fire
exposure of the “Standard for the
Production, Storage, and Handling of
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)-2006
2009,” (NFPA 59A) of the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
are declared to be part of this Code
as if they were fully set forth herein.
63. American Petroleum 37 15, 22 37 15, 22 4.1.1 Licensed design professional not defined. Agree. 2010.12.16
Institute Engineer is defined (on p18, line 17). Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task For future action:
Group
Also see comment 64.
64. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 37 37 37 15 Unclear, suggest the following revision: “Testing of Agree. 2010.12.16
materials used in concrete construction shall Webinar
conform to the applicable building codes and shall For future action:
be approved by the licensed design professional.” Also see comment 64.
65. American Petroleum 38 6 38 6 R4.1.1 (b) ACI 349 is the only standard listed as Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Institute acceptable for material testing of metallic liners. ACI Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task 349 is for nuclear safety-related concrete structures. ACI 349 does not contain any
Group This seems like overkill for this application. provision for testing metallic liners.
18 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
R4.1.1—Acceptable standard
material tests at ambient
temperatures are referenced in:
a) ACI 350 and ACI 318 for concrete
and conventional reinforcing steel;
b) ACI 349 for metallic liners
c) b) ASTM (or comparable) for
general materials.
Other tests are listed in this Code.

66. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 38 7 37 20 Reference to section 4.14.3 relates only to roof Agree reference is incorrect. Correct 2010.10.24
plate. This reference needs to be corrected. reference is 4.13.2. See 2010.04.01 Pittsburgh
response to item 3 in 2010.03.31 J.B.
email.
67. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 38 9 37 22 The two year requirement contradicts section Discussed and agreed. 2010.12.16
R1.2.3.1 which indicates that owner keep the Webinar
records for the life of the structure. Change as follows:
4.1.4—The complete record of

material tests in accordance with
Section 4.14.3 shall be available for
inspection during the progress of the
work, and a complete set of these
documents shall be preserved by
Owner for at least 2 years after
completion of the workthrough the
life of the tank.
(also correct R1.2.3.1)
68. Reiterman, Roy 40 20-21 40 20-21 It’s misleading to discuss fiber reinforced concrete in No action is required. 2010.12.16
the same vain as steel reinforced concrete – not the Webinar
same. My unbiased field experience does not show The Code only permits the use of
that fiber concrete improves the structural strength fibers but does not require that it be
of concrete. used.
19 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Also see responses 69 to 73.
69. Reiterman, Roy 40 22-23 40 22-23 Inaccurate to state fibers improve “certain” No action is required. 2010.12.16
properties. A flag should be considered so that Webinar
people don’t believe fibers can be substituted for 50-years of research and
steel reinforcing. documentation by ACI 544 support
this statement. The Code does
require that fibers replaced ordinary
reinforcing bars.
See response 68.

70. Reiterman, Roy 41 1-3 41 1-3 Delete compressive ductility, tensile strength and No action is required. 2010.12.16
ductility and shear strength and ductility – these Webinar
structural amenities can only be handled by with The Commenter is not informed on
steel reinforcing. these issues.
See response 68.

71. Reiterman, Roy 41 4 41 4 Toughness, crack control – but only in the plastic No action is required. 2010.12.16
shrinkage stages. Not the drying shrinkage (longer Webinar
shrinkage stage). Supporting information exists in ACI
544 documents.
See response 68.

72. Reiterman, Roy 41 5 41 5 I would not say fiber concrete can control fatigue. I No action is required. 2010.12.16
am familiar with auto plans that require heavy steel Webinar
reinforced beam and slab cross sections around Supporting information exists in ACI
press machinery to handle vibrations and fatigue 544 documents.
stresses.
See response 68.
73. Reiterman, Roy 41 8-10 41 8-10 Delete section 4.6.2. Fibers improve resistance to No action is required. 2010.12.16
spalling in fires. It’s speculation and also needs to Webinar
be approved and put into an ACI Standard. I am not Supporting information exists in ACI
aware of any text. 544 documents and in the references
in this Code.
See response 68.

74. Kuebitz, Karl 41 17 41 17 Add “Polypropylene fibers are commonly added to Discussed. 2010.12.16
20 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
shotcrete of wire or strand- wrapped prestressed Webinar
concrete structures.” For future action.
75. Reiterman, Roy 42 1-3 42 1-3 Its conjecture to say that steel reinforced concrete is No action is required. The Code 2010.12.16
not affective below 0 degrees. That’s new to me and does not state that ordinary Webinar
I have been in this industry for over 50 years. reinforcement is not effective below
0oF.
For future action:

Committee may want to consider a
lesser value than 0oF. See Comments
#28 and #76.
76. American Petroleum 42 4, 15 42 4, 15 4.7.2 0°F should change to -4°F(-20°C) to conform See response 75 2010.12.16
Institute to other international codes. Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task
Group
77. American Petroleum 42 17 42 17 4.7.2 It is indicated that this section applies to Agree. 2010.12.16
Institute components exposed to “cryogenic conditions”. The Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task section heading would imply this means below 0F. For future action:
Group But that would be an unconventional use of the
term. “Cryogenic” is generally understood to refer See Comments #28 and #76.
much colder temperatures. Page 19 defines
cryogenic as “very low temperatures down to -270F.
So this section becomes hard to interpret.
78. CB&I 42 20 42 20 Section reference 4.7.2 should be 4.7.1. Response 78, 84 2010.10.24
Agree Pittsburgh
79. Reiterman, Roy 43 1 43 1 Has no max/min. allowable stresses for steel No action required. Requirements 2010.12.20
reinforcement and overlooks min. yield strengths for for steel reinforcing bars are Web Ballot
steel reinforcement which can be found in approved handled by reference in the Code to
reinforcing standards (both ACI and ASTM). Also a the appropriate ASTM standards.
reason to drop fiber strengths since there are none ACI 318, ACI 350, and others do not
listed. What I do know about temperatures of include minimum strengths.
reinforced concrete is that it is not placed outdoors
below freezing temperatures or that heated blankets Section 4.6 deals with fibers and
are used. I.e.: bridge decks when it’s anticipated refers the user to ACI 544
that concrete will be exposed to temps below 32 documents. In 4.6, there is no
degrees overnight. requirement for fiber strength.
21 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
It is assumed that the commenter is

talking about concrete placing
temperatures. The Section he is
commenting on deals with service
temperatures.
Response 80 and 81
80. Reiterman, Roy 43 1 43 1 Today there are ASTM standards for A615 reinforcing For future action. 2010.12.20
with higher grades that 60 ksi. They go over 80 ksi in Web Ballot
the latest standards. Also, ASTM A706 is higher Agree.
strength – to over 78 ksi yield strength. Some other
corrosion resistant reinforcing is over 100 ksi fy. Response 79
81. Reiterman, Roy 43 1 43 1 I am not aware of ACI or ASTM that has BS No action required. 2010.12.20
standards. Suggest the text include other steel Web Ballot
reinforcing standards, i.e. A775 & 934 are epoxy There is no history of coated
coated reinforcing standards. Also A767 is zinc reinforcing bars being used in these
coated (galvanized). A1035 low carbon, chromium type structures, hence their use is
reinforcing and A933 is vinyl coated. A955 stainless not allowed in this Code
reinforcing is noted in the text – a states reinforcing
with not less than 60 ksi fy but the A955-09 lists 40, See Response 80 for the high
60, and 75 ksi. Why not list high strength strength bars.
reinforcing?
82. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 43 2 43 2 It is recommended using consistency in writing units. Agree. ACI Editing will standardize 2010.10.24
Team For example, Page 43, line 2 has lb/in2, and line 14 this. Pittsburgh
has psi for “pounds per square inch”.
83. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 43 14 42 13 Editorial: Incorrect reference, Section 4.8.3.1(a) does Agree reference is incorrect. Correct 2010.10.24
JH[same not exist. Correct reference may be 4.7.2(a). reference is 4.7.2(a). See 2010.04.01 Pittsburgh
] response to item 4 in 2010.03.31 J.B.
email.
84. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 43 22 42 20 Editorial: Is section reference correct? This Response 78, 84 2010.10.24
JH[same reference is to this section not another section as See response 78 Pittsburgh
] the wording implies. Should reference be 4.7.1?
85. Reiterman, Roy 43 22 43 22 States that when limited stresses are exceeded, the No action required. 2010.12.16
non-prestressed reinforcing should not be Webinar
22 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
considered. What kind of statement is that? Comment offers no solution.
Engineers design structures with safety or load
factors to account for possible overloads. The
statement does not belong in an ACI standard
document. I am at a loss to believe that engineers
can design fiber structures with safety and load
factors when it’s not known where fibers are in the
concrete, let alone a required length and volume
measurement throughout a structure, and then to
design fibers to do what steel reinforcing intends –
to provide structural strength to support dead, live
and seismic loads – and yet to handle overloads
(they are called safety factors).
I believe that the preliminary 376 text has been

prepared by those that believe fibers are the chosen
reinforcement and steel reinforcement is only
discussed as an alternate. ACI does not go down this
road. It is a professional engineering organization
with ethics and a strong background in structural
engineering.
86. CB&I 44 1 44 1 Editorial: Remove “_” after the word “bars”. agree 2010.10.24
Pittsburgh
87. American Petroleum 44 5 44 5 R4.7.2 The list of low temperature rebar seems For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute quite dated. I’d be surprised if one can actually Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task procure today either 25Mn 5 Cr 1 Ni or 9%Ni as Agreed.
Group rebar. On the other hand something that certainly
should be on the list is rebar produced by the Response to 87 to 91
Tempcore process (see
http://www.arcelormittal.com/sections/uploads/tx_
abdownloads/files/TMCP_2004__01.pdf)
88. American Petroleum 44 6 44 6 R.4.7.2 Krybar is a trade name of ArcelorMittal. Is For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute only that brand permitted? Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task See response to 87.
Group
23 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
89. American Petroleum 44 7 44 7 R4.7.2 Austenitic steels 25 Mn 5Cr 1Ni? Never heard For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute of this. Typo? Web Ballot
Group
90. American Petroleum 44 7 44 7 R.4.7.2 25Mn 5Cr 1Ni is named from Nippon Steel. For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute Is only that one supplier permitted for this grade? Web Ballot
Group
91. American Petroleum 44 8 44 8 R.4.7.2 9% Ni steel is named from Nippon Kokan. Is For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute only that one supplier permitted for this grade? Web Ballot
Group
92. American Petroleum 44 10 44 10 The reference to section 4.10.2 does not pertain to Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Institute metal liners. It is unclear what actual section Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task reference is intended. R4.7.2—Deformed reinforcement at
Group service temperatures below 0 °F
“…..For metal liners used as
reinforcement in composite action
with the concrete, see also Section
4.10.2 4.8 of this Code.”
Also see Response 93

93. Conlon, John F. 44 10 44 10 is the cross-reference to 4.10.2 correct? The correct section reference is 4.8 2011.03.18
not 4.10.2 Webinar
94. American Petroleum 45 2 45 2 There is no code requirement for section 4.8. R4.8 is Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Institute commentary but it uses “shall”. Was it really Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task intended to be commentary? Change as follows:
Group
4.8—Plate steel composite with
concrete
R4.8—Plate steel composite with
concrete
Selection of plate steel used as
reinforcement acting in composite
action with concrete shall be based
24 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
on the requirements of API 620,
Appendix Q or R, as applicable for
the design metal temperature
corresponding to minimum service
temperature at surface of the plate.
concrete
Selection of plate material in API 620
Appendices Q and R depends on
design metal temperature (DMT) as
follows:
a) Appendix Q is applicable to
product temperatures to –270 °F;
and
b) Appendix R is applicable to
product temperatures at +40 to –60
°F.
See Responses 96, 97

95. American Petroleum 45 4-5 45 4-5 R4.8 API 620 Tables R-1 & R-2 for primary For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute components and Tables R-3 and R-4 for secondary Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task components cover similar temperature ranges. Agreed.
Group These would include product temperature of LPG
and of some ambient air conditions. So for an LPG
tank, the temperature alone does not determine
which table applies in the API 620
edition/addendum referenced. This implies that this
section of ACI 376 leads to ambiguous requirements.
Note that the planned next addendum of API 620
will resolve this ambiguity for such liners.
96. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 45 14 45 2 Editorial: Is section reference correct? Should The correct section reference is 4.8 2011.03.18
JH[44] 10 reference be 4.8? not 4.10.2 Webinar
97. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 46 2 45 2 Editorial: R4.8 should start on line 6 and the first For future action. 2010.12.20
JH[same sentence is section 4.8. Web Ballot
] See Response to 94
25 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
98. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 46 11 45 11 Editorial: TAC had previously commented that a Disagree. 2010.12.20
JH[same paragraph number can not just be a title and needs Web Ballot
] to have text associated with it. Section 4.9.1 should Numerous examples of a Code
be moved to 4.9 and subsequent paragraphs Section title with no text other than
renumbered. This occurs throughout the document. Commentary text exist in ACI 318.
99. Krstulovic, Neven 46 13 46 13 4.9.2 Since this particular section applies to both Response 99, 100: Agree with 100. 2010.10.24
internal and external strand-prestressing systems, NK #11 (Gap analysis #--) Pittsburgh
Introduce the following change: Introduce the following change (D.J.,
“4.9.2 – The strand for internal circumferential Pawski, Ballard, Howe, NKO, Domas,
prestressing systems…” Hoff, Garrison, Hoptay (100%))
100. Legatos, Nicholas A. 46 13 46 13 Sec. 4.9.2 – “The strand for internal circumferential Response 99, 100: 2010.10.24
prestressing systems…” Agree with recommended change. Pittsburgh
101. Kuebitz, Karl 46 16 46 16 Add the sentence, “When galvanized wire or strand Agree. 2010.12.16
is used for prestressed reinforcement, the wire or Webinar
strand should have a zinc coating of 0.85 oz./ft 2 For future action.
(260 g/m2) of uncoated wire surface, except for wire
that is stressed by die drawing. If die drawing is Also see response 102.
used, the coating can be reduced to 0.50 oz./ft 2
(150 g/m2) of wire surface after stressing. The
coated wire or strand should meet the minimum
elongation requirements of ASTM A 421 or ASTM A
416. The coating should meet the requirements for
Table 4, Class A coating, specified in ASTM A 586.”
102. Kuebitz, Karl 47 1 47 1 Add, “Galvanized wire and strand for prestressing is Agree. 2010.12.16
commonly used on externally wire and strand Webinar
wrapped structures for improved corrosion For future action.
protection of the primary reinforcement.”
103. Krstulovic, Neven 47 4-5 47 4-5 1. The reference to ACI 350, App. G, is enough. Response 103, 104: Agree with 104. 2010.10.24
2. If there was a need to single out an ASTM NK #12 (Gap analysis #) Pittsburgh
Standard in this section, it should be the most- Introduce the following change (D.J.,
commonly used ASTM A821, not A421. Pawski, Ballard, Howe, NKO, Domas,
Therefore, introduce the following change: Hoff, Garrison, Hoptay supported
(100%))
“4.9.3 – Steel for wire-wound prestressing shall
26 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
comply with the provisions of ASTM A421 and ACI
350, Appendix G, for...”
104. Legatos, Nicholas A. 47 4-5 47 4-5 Sec. 4.9.3 – “Steel for wire-wound prestressing shall Response 103, 104: 2010.10.24
comply with the provisions of ASTM A421 and ACI Agree with recommended change. Pittsburgh
350, Appendix G, for...”
105. Kuebitz, Karl 47 5 47 5 Replace “other wire-wound systems” with Agree. 2010.12.16
“electronically controlled mechanical prestressing Webinar
systems” For future action.
106. American Petroleum 48 8 48 8 It is hard to understand exactly the respective Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Institute scopes of sections 4.9 and 4.13. 4.9 is said to be for Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task plate steel used as reinforcement. Is 4.13 for liner See response to 94. The commenter
Group plate that is NOT used for reinforcement? Is that the probably means 4.8 and not 4.9.
meaning of the term “non-structural”? It would be
clearer if the same terminology were used in both Change the following to read:
sections. Further the term “non-structural” is used
in 4.13.2 & 4.13.3 but not in 4.13.1, 4.13.4, 4.13.5, R4.13.1—This Code does not
or 4.13.6. So is the scope of application limited to address the materials, design, or
non-structural components only for the sections construction of steel primary or
where the term is used? secondary tanks as this information
is described in API 620.
The metal liners should be

considered as non-structural unless
they also function as reinforcement
in composite elements as described
in Section 4.8.
Also see Response 107:

107. American Petroleum 48 10-13 48 10-13 4.13.1 & R4.13.1 It’s not clear to me what the For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute subject of this section is. The commentary states Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task that steel tanks are outside the scope of ACI 376. If See Response to 106.
Group the code provisions also pertain to these same
tanks, then it should be deleted since there is no
point in trying to state a mandatory requirement
regarding something outside the scope of ACI 376.
27 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Further, why would such full thickness steel tanks be
spoken of in a section on “Metal Liners”?
108. American Petroleum 48 16 48 16 API 620 upcoming revision will change terminology For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute to “product temperature materials” and Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task “atmospheric temperature materials” In the future Agree.
Group ACI 376 should use the later terminology in its
references to API 620. Also see Responses 111 and 115.
109. American Petroleum 48 16-17 48 16-17 4.13.2 This would permit a primary tank liner for For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute LNG to be made of carbon steel (metal classified as Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task secondary component in 620-Q) no matter what Agree.
Group stresses may exist including high tension stresses.
That differs from industry practices that I am aware
of.
110. American Petroleum 48 20 48 20 4.13.4 “at least Group II ASTM A516” sounds too Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Institute severe. Any material confirming the minimum Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task design temperatures in Table R-4 of API620 should 4.13.4—Roof liner plates and bottom
Group be acceptable. vapor barrier plates shall be fine-
grain carbon steel conforming at
least to Group II ASTM A516, with
the minimum design temperatures in
accordance with the design
requirements in Table R-4 of API 620.
111. American Petroleum 49 2, 5 49 2, 5 4.13.5 & 4.13.6 API 620 upcoming revision will For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute change terminology to “product temperature Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task materials” and “atmospheric temperature materials” Agree.
Group
Also see Responses 108 and 115.
112. American Petroleum 49 3 49 3 4.13.5 It is not clear what the “service For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute temperatures” are for these vapor barrier plates. Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task For the liner of an outer container of a full Needs discussion
Group containment system, do the service temperatures
address only those existing during normal operation 4.13.5—Carbon steel vapor barrier
or also the colder temperatures existing during a plates attached to the concrete wall
spill case? shall be in conformance with
28 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
material requirements for the
secondary components as defined by
API 620 Appendix R at service
temperatures.
113. American Petroleum 49 4-5 49 4-5 4.13.6 This section tries to make its scope of For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute applicability “primary components as defined in Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task Appendix Q of API 620.” But Appendix Q at the Agree.
Group edition/addendum referenced does not refer to
liners at all so it is unclear how to apply this. Also,
consider cases where cryogenic alloy materials (9Ni
or stainless) could be required for a liner by the rules
of ACI 376, in such a case you would not want the
welding procedures to follow App R.
114. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 49 7 48 3 Editorial: Reference to Section 11.4.5 is not required Agree. 2010.10.24
JH[same since it refers to grout and not post-tensioning Also review reference to 11.4.4 for Pittsburgh
] ducts. same reason.
115. American Petroleum 49 9 49 9 R4.14 Note that API 625 section 9 will cover For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute insulation in detail and will be appropriate for both Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task steel and concrete containers. Suggest that in the Agree.
Group future this section of 376 can be dropped.
Also see Responses 108 and 111.
116. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 49 13 49 6?? Editorial: Previous approved versions this document Agree. Based on input from 2101.12.20
JH[48] 8 had a commentary for metal liners including part of 2010.10.04 webinar and Pittsburgh Web Ballot
page 10 8 lines 4-14. The commentary needs to meeting make following changes.
include this information.
Editorially move R4.13.1 to the
more appropriate Scope section.
R4.13.1—This Code does not
address the materials, design, or
construction of steel
primary or secondary tanks as this
information
is described in API 620.
29 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Add as last paragraph of R1.1: “This
Code
does not address the materials,
design, or
construction of steel primary or
secondary
tanks as this information is described
in API
620.”
In R1.1.1 make these changes:
Delete:
The design of the liner should
consider: a) Service conditions;
b) Potential thermal shock;
c) Extra gas pressures;
d) The need to bridge cracks in the
concrete;
e) Resistance to fire;
f) Resistance to blast and impact;
g) Resistance to earthquakes; h)
Residual weld stresses; and
i) Concrete strain due to shrinkage
and
prestressing. Liners, except for
sacrificial liners, must be ductile at
all
design temperatures.
Insert in its place:
"Only material selection criterion is

included for the Thermal Corner
Protection (TCP) of a secondary tank
30 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
in this specification. The design
parameters, analysis methods,
acceptance criteria (stress or strain
limits), detailing and construction
requirements for are not included in
this document."
117. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 50 4 50 4 Remove reference to roof plates in this paragraph Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
since it is specifically covered by paragraph 4.13.4 Web Ballot
4.13.3—All roof plate material and
nonstructural metallic barriers in the
concrete wall and the base slab shall
be of carbon steel conforming to
Table R-4 of Appendix R of API 620.
118. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 50 4, 11 48 18 Paragraphs 4.13.3.and 4.13.5 cover the same topic. Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
49 1 These paragraphs should be combined. Web Ballot
See Response 117.
4.13.3—All roof plate material and

nonstructural metallic barriers in the
concrete wall and the base slab shall
be of carbon steel conforming to
Table R-4 of Appendix R of API 620.
Carbon steel vapor barrier plates

attached to the concrete wall shall
be in conformance with material
requirements for the secondary
components as defined by API 620
Appendix R at service temperatures.
4.13.4—Roof liner plates and bottom

vapor barrier plates shall be fine-
grain carbon steel conforming at
least to Group II ASTM A516, with
the minimum design temperatures in
31 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
accordance with the design
requirements in Table R-4 of API 620.
4.13.5—Carbon steel vapor
barrier plates attached to the
concrete wall shall be in
conformance with material
requirements for the secondary
components as defined by API 620
Appendix R at service temperatures.
4.13.6 4.13.5 —
Welding procedures shall comply
with Section R.6 of Appendix R of API
620 for primary components as
defined in Appendix Q of API 620.
119. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 50 19, 22 49 8, 10 Editorial: NFPA 59A-2009 paragraph for insulation is Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
JH[same 7.3.5. Web Ballot
] 4.14 —Insulation
Insulation material shall meet the
requirements of NFPA 59A, 7.2.5
7.3.5.
R4.14—Insulation
The requirements of Section
7.2.5 7.3.5 of NFPA 59A are for LNG
tanks. Unless otherwise specified in
the project documents, the same
requirements can be applied to RLG
tanks.
120. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 52 9-13 51 2-6 This was commentary related to the definition of “T” Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Is reference to page 51, when variable definition was placed at the beginning Web Ballot
lines 2-6?? of each chapter. These lines should be incorporated CHAPTER 5—DESIGN LOADS
in the commentary, R5.1.5 Thermal and moisture Temperature design loads
gradient loading. include loads developed as the
result of both transient and steady-
state thermal gradients due to
32 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
differential time rate of cooling
between the concrete wall, steel
embedments, and wall liner.
Attachment loads developed in the
wall at the thermal corner
protection location due to a steady
state thermal gradient between the
wall embedment and secondary
bottom are included in this load
category.
R5.1.5—Thermal and
moisture-gradient loading (Te,To)
Temperature design loads
include loads developed as the result
of both transient and steady-state
thermal gradients due to differential
time rate of cooling between the
concrete wall, steel embedments,
and wall liner. Attachment loads
developed in the wall at the thermal
corner protection location due to a
steady state thermal gradient
between the wall embedment and
secondary bottom are included in
this load category.
Necessary details of the

moisture-gradient loading should be
provided in the project
specifications.
Normal thermal and moisture-
gradient loading experienced under
normal operation conditions are
loads developed during normal
33 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
operation when the RLG is stored
within the inner tank. The thermal
profiles are normally derived from
steady and transient state thermal
analyses of the whole tank.
121. CB&I 52 13 52 20 R5.1.2: Define prestressing decommissioning For future action. 2010.12.20
Is reference to page 52 force(s) that must be considered in the design of a Web Ballot
line 20?? primary or secondary containment concrete tank.
122. American Petroleum 52 19 52 19 Insulation pressure due to perlite will be an internal For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute pressure for the outer containment for full Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task containment tank system and should be considered. Agree.
Group
Also Response 124
123. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 53 2 51 17 Remove inner stair and add to f) since it is an agree 2010.10.24
appurtenance. Pittsburgh
124. American Petroleum 53 6 53 6 Insulation pressure due to perlite will be an external For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute pressure for the inner containment for full Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task containment tank system with a concrete inner tank Agree.
Group and should be considered.
For future action.
See Response 122.

125. Matrix Service 53 6 51 21 Suggest revising to define the bottom insulation Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
(Pullinger) system: “2) Bottom insulation systems, including all Web Ballot
components that comprise the system (leveling 5.1.1—Dead loads D)
courses, plate and insulation).
e) Insulation weight
1) Side insulation;
2) Bottom insulation including
all components that comprise
the system (leveling courses,
plate and insulation), and
3) Suspended deck insulation;
126. Matrix Service 53 16 52 8-9 The containment may have ring beams at the top Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
(Pullinger) and bottom of the wall. Suggest revising as follows: Web Ballot
34 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
“Vertical prestressing in the wall and the effect of 5.1.2—Prestressing forces (Pf, Pi)
circumferential prestressing force in the wall and in Vertical prestressing in the wall and
the top or bottom ring beams shall be considered” the effect of circumferential
prestressing force in the wall and in
the top or bottom ring-beam and
vertical wall prestressing shall be
considered.
127. CB&I 53 18 54 1 R5.1.5: Define the necessary details of the For future action. 2010.12.20
moisture-gradient loading needed for design to be Web Ballot
provided in the project specifications and make this Agree.
a mandatory requirement.
If definition in the project specification is not

mandatory, then indicate the ACI 376 acceptable
method(s) for contractor to determine moisture-
gradient loading details. Add method or provide
reference to other ACI requirement.
128. CB&I 54 11, 17 54 16, 23 5.1.7 and R5.1.7: Define decommissioning loads For future action. 2010.12.20
that must be considered in the design of a primary Web Ballot
or secondary containment concrete tank. Agree.
129. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 54 19 53 8 Lateral earth pressure is not limited to only the Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
walls. Suggest revising line 19: “acting on the walls Web Ballot
structure shall be considered.” 5.1.4—External pressures
a) soil (backfill) loading –
external lateral earth pressure
due to both permanent earth
backfill (Fv), and the surcharge
effect of live and other loads
supported by the earth acting on
the walls structure shall be
considered;
130. American Petroleum 55 8 55 14 Reference should be to Chapter 4. agree 2010.10.24
Institute Pittsburgh
Group
35 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
131. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 55 11 55 17 Section 5.1.10 General Live Loads (L), Line 19, Disagree. 2010.12.20
Team Uniformly distributed roof load (R): It is Web Ballot
recommended to specify the minimum design live The last sentence of this Section
load in this sub-section, as opposed to Section refers the reader to 5.1.12.
5.1.12 – Environmental loads.
132. CB&I 56 5 56 11 5.1.11: Replace “applied to the tank as deformed For future action. 2010.12.20
loads. with “accounted for in the design.” Web Ballot
133. Conlon, John F. 56 6 56 6 reference to ASCE/ SEI 7 not appropriate for types of No action required. 2010.12.20
structures in Appendix B especially wave and current Web Ballot
induced loads. Any guidance for simultaneously Appendix B does not use ASCE/SEI
occurring environmental loads. 7.
134. Krstulovic, Neven 56 6 56 6 5.1.12 To more clearly indicate how would a NK #1 (Gap analysis #) 2010.11.05
designer use the information provided regarding a Web Ballot
probabilistic approach add following text to
Commentary:
“As per ASCE 7, extreme - value statistical analysis
procedures should be used in evaluating data
available in the vicinity of the site.”
135. American Petroleum 56 7 56 13 5.1.12 a) - 20 lb/ft2 is described in API620. It should For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute be consistent. Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task 5.1.12—Environmental loads
Group a) Roof loading (R) – A minimum
uniformly distributed loading of 25
lb/ft2 shall be used;
b) Snow loading – shall be
determined in accordance with
ASCE/SEI 7 or with a
probabilistic approach. Where a
probabilistic approach is used, a 100-
year mean recurrence interval shall
be used.
See responses 136, 137 &139

136. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 56 7 56 13 Section 5.1.12 Environmental loads,– it is not clear For future action. 2010.12.20
Team what would be an “environmental load” that would Web Ballot
36 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
create a uniform distributed load of 25 psf. This is See responses 135, 137 & 139
obviously not a snow load, as it is discussed in the
following sub-section. If it is a minimum live load, it
should be specified in Section 5.1.10. In addition, it
is not clear what dictates the increase in the
minimum distributed roof live load as compared
with other standards that specify a minimum of 20
psf (API 650), and of 12 psf (ASCE 7-05) roof live
load.
137. American Petroleum 56 8 56 14-19 5.1.12 b) & c) - Detail description of the snow load For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute and wind load are different from API620 section 5.4. Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task They should be consistent. See responses 135, 136 & 139
Group
138. American Petroleum 56 13 56 17 Refer to using a 3 Second Gust Proposed wording 2011.02.18
Institute Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task c) Wind loading (W) – shall be based
Group on the 3 second gust and shall be
ASCE/SEI 7 or with a probabilistic
approach. Where a probabilistic
approach is used, a 100‐year mean
recurrence interval shall be used.
139. Cormire, Don A. 57 11 57 18 Paragraph R5.1.12 – Environmental Loads makes For future action. 2010.12.20
note that “API-650 (paragraph 3.10.2.1) defines a Web Ballot
minimum roof live load of 25 lb/ft2. API-620 does Agree.
not have a similar requirement.” That was true in
2003 when the ACI-376 committee began its work See responses 135, 136 & 137
on this document. However, the API-650 document
was changed effective 2007 with the release of the
11th edition of that standard. Now the proper
paragraph references and design loads are given in
“API-650-5.2.1.f Design Considerations – Loads –
Minimum Roof Live Load (Lr): 20 lb/ft2 on the
horizontal projected area of the roof. The minimum
roof live load may alternatively be determined in
accordance with ASCE 7, but shall not be less than
37 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
15 psf.” Additionally, “API-650-5.10.2.1 Roofs –
General – Loads: All roofs and supporting structures
shall be designed for load combinations (a), (b), (c),
(e), (f) and (g) of Appendix R.” [see Appendix R of
API-650 for those load combinations]. Nonetheless,
20 lb/ft2 is the new API-650 acceptable minimum
roof live load in lieu of 25 lb/ft2 given in earlier
versions of the document, unless ASCE 7 is invoked
which will allow for loadings down to 15 lb/ft 2.
Additionally, API-620 was updated effective 2008
with the release of the 11th edition of that standard.
See “API-620-5.4.1.e Loads – Individual Loads –
Minimum roof live load (Lr): 20 lb/ft2 on the
horizontal projected area of the roof.” So, again 20
lb/ft2 is the new API-620 acceptable minimum roof
live load, vs. previously being silent on the subject.
140. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 57 15 57 15 Editorial: Reference to Chapter 5 should be Chapter Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
JH[55] 14 6. Web Ballot
5.1.9—Shrinkage and creep-induced
loads
Shrinkage and creep-induced loads
shall be considered using material
properties indicated in Chapter 5 6.
141. Matrix Service 58 5 56 2 The weight of fluid in pipes is a well defined load For future action. 2010.12.20
(Pullinger) and should be classified as a product load and Web Ballot
removed from this paragraph. Editorial.
142. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 58 11 58 16 5.1.13 Defines the SSEaft = ½ SSE. This is a better For future action. 2010.12.20
Team definition than what has previously been assumed Web Ballot
where the Aftershock is equal to the OBE. How will
inconsistency with NFPA59A be dealt with?
NFPA59A implies that the aftershock is equal to the
OBE? In some areas the SSE<2OBE. This means that
SSEaft < OBE. Is this ok or should the greater number
control the size of the aftershock?
143. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 59 16 59 16 Editorial: The subjects of the commentary do not Agree. Editorial and technical 2010.12.20
38 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
JH[57] 14 follow the same sequence of subjects on the code revision. Due to new revisions to Web Ballot
side. Commentary paragraphs should be rearranged API 620 and API 650, both now
to be consistent with the code sequence. require a 20 psf minimum roof live
load. Update our text to reflect that
change.
The only line item or paragraph that

seems out of sequence is that
dealing with roof live loads. The
section is revised as follows by
moving the second paragraph to
being the first paragraph in the
section:
R5.1.12—Environmental loads
It should be noted that both API 620
and 650 require a minimum roof
live load of 20 b/f2. BS EN 14620,
Part 1 requires a minimum roof love
load of 25 lb/f2.
Effects of both highest and lowest

ambient temperatures should be
considered. The stress free
temperature for concrete should be
included within the analysis. In the
absence of detailed calculations, this
should be taken as 68 oF.
Other examples of ambient

temperatures include:
a) Maximum seasonal average
ambient temperature;
b) Slab temperatures commensurate
with external ambient conditions (for
39 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
example, elevated slab);
c) Forced and free convection
commensurate with wind and still air
conditions;
d) Solar radiation effects; and
e) Convective losses at the concrete
interface.
It should be noted that both API 650

(Paragraph 3.10.2.1) and BS EN
14620, Part 1 (Section 7.3.2.2.2)
define a minimum roof live load of
25 lb/ft2. API 620 does not have a
similar requirement.
Effects of waves, current, flood, and

related loads that pertain to offshore
concrete tank structures should be
treated as described in Appendix B
of this Code.
144. Matrix Service 60 1 57 14, 16 Is this not already covered by (c) of this section? If Both item c.) and e.) appear to refer 2011.03.18
(Pullinger) not, clarification of e) may need to be added. to the same thermal effect suggest Webinar
deleting “e.)”. If not, then this
section needs to provide clarification
of the difference.
145. CB&I 60 10 60 14 5.1.14: Define internal explosion or impact (this No action required. 2010.12.20
seems like a non-credible design loading condition). Web Ballot
Define acceptance criteria and acceptable method(s) This is an optional requirement
of design. defined by the project specifications
which should also include
acceptance criteria and methods of
design.
Missile impact was a load condition
40 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
for the LNG tanks at Qatar Gas.
146. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 60 13, 15 60 13, 15 Section 5.1.14 Explosion and impact (B, Mi) – It is No action required. 2010.12.20
Team recommended specifying a minimum “missile Web Ballot
impact” or “impact of windborne object” to provide These are project and site specific
guidance to the Engineer. and should be defined in the project
specifications.
147. CB&I 60 17 60 21 R5.1.14: Define acceptance criteria for scabbing. No action required. 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
Scabbing is a familiar term in
dealing with the inspection and
repair of concrete.
148. CB&I 61 1 61 6 R5.1.15: Define the necessary details of the For future action. 2010.12.20
moisture-gradient loading needed for design to be Web Ballot
provided in the project specifications and make this Agree.
a mandatory requirement.
If definition in the project specification is not

mandatory, then indicate the ACI 376 acceptable
method(s) for contractor to determine moisture-
gradient loading details. Add method or provide
reference to other ACI requirement.
149. CB&I 61 8, 9, 61 13, 5.1.16 and R5.1.16: Define the requirements of For future action. 2010.12.20
10, 11 14, NFPA 59A including, if applicable, acceptance criteria Web Ballot
15, 16 and acceptable method(s) of designing for internal These requirements are project and
fire effects. site specific and should be defined
in the project specifications.
150. CB&I 61 12 61 17 5.1.16: Replace the word “Quality” with the word Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
“Quantitative”. Web Ballot
R5.1.16—Fire (H)
External fire effects, internal fire
effects, and pressure-relief stack
(tailpipe) fire should be considered.
Modes of fire and resulting heat
fluxes should be defined by a quality
quantitative risk analysis (QRA).
41 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
External fires may be the result of an
adjacent tank fire, impoundment
fire, or process equipment fires
151. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 61 23 5759 11 Editorial: Redundant wording “ reduces the period Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
JH[same of ground motion to reduce to as low as 700 years” Web Ballot
] R5.1.13—Seismic loads
R5.1.13—Seismic loads: The seismic
design requirements in this Code are
consistent with seismic provisions in
NFPA 59A for a two level earthquake
criteria. OBE and SSE ground
motions are probabilistic 475-year
and 2475-year return period ground
motions, respectively.
The SSE ground motions correspond

to probabilistic MCE (maximum
considered earthquake) ground
motions as defined in the ASCE/SEI
7. For site specific analysis, only
probabilistic MCE ground motions
are used to limit the site specific
response spectrum rather than the
lesser of the probabilistic and
deterministic limits as permitted by
ASCE/SEI 7.
This more conservative approach for
site-specific analysis is used for the
following reasons:
a) The MCE ground motions in the
ASCE/SEI 7 were developed for the
purpose of designing
buildings and other structures in the
USA. The rationale behind the MCE
ground motions may not be
42 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
compatible with the rationale
employed outside the USA; and
b) In certain regions and under
certain conditions, the truncation of
the probabilistic MCE ground
motions by the “deterministic limit”
reduces the return period of the
MCE ground motions to reduce to as
low as 700 years.
152. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 62 2 59 14 Editorial: remove parenthesis and negative signs. No action required. 2010.12.20
JH[same Web Ballot
] They are not negative signs but are
the strikeouts of the parenthesis.
153. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 62 4 62 9 d) External pressure: It is recommended providing For future action. 2010.12.20
Team guidance how to define this loading condition, and Web Ballot
what would be the source of this pressure. In case
this is to account for “negative pressure”, i.e.
pressure resulting from vacuum effects inside the
tank that would create a differential external
pressure, then this should be clarified. In case the
listed “external pressure” is meant to be something
else, then the normal loading conditions shall
include a vacuum condition as well.
154. CB&I 62 12 62 17 5.2.1.2 Abnormal Loads Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
All potential abnormal loads are not listed. Web Ballot
Add site specific abnormal loads as identified 5.2.1.2—Abnormal loading
through project risk assessment. conditions
c) External explosion and impact

loading (B, Mi); and
d) Fire (H).
e) Site specific abnormal loads as
identified through project risk
assessment.
43 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
See responses 155 and 156
155. CB&I 62 17 62 22 5.2.1.2 Abnormal Loading: “All different cases of For future action. 2010.12.20
product spilling . . . including, but not limited to:” Web Ballot
This requirement does not limit a dynamic rupture
of the primary liquid container as not viable. Clarify
that this is not a viable load condition.
Product spilling cases not specifically listed should
be handled by a general site specific load
requirement.
156. CB&I 62 23 63 5 5.2.1.2: Define the required design spill level in the No action required. 2010.12.20
outer tank when considering “Overfill of the inner Web Ballot
tank”. This spill level affecting the outer
tank will be defined by the
dimensions of the annulus and the
amount and condition of insulation
in the annulus and cannot be
quantified in the Code.
157. American Petroleum 63 4-8 63 9-13 Editorial: Recommend moving lines 4 to 8 to line 15 No action required. 2010.12.20
Institute for clarity. Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task The location of this paragraph is
Group satisfactory.
158. CB&I 63 10 63 15 R5.2.1.2 For future action. 2010.12.20
Code states: “Consideration should be given to Web Ballot
extending the thermal corner protection to some
nominal distance above the normal thermal corner
protection if the potential for a full spill exists.”
It is recognized that the design of the secondary
containment requires consideration for containment
of the entire primary container contents which
would result in a full spill condition. What is the
intent of the code statement? Consider removing.
159. CB&I 63 11 63 16 R5.2.1.2: The phrase “if the potential for a full spill Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
exists” should be deleted. Designing for a full spill is Web Ballot
a requirement of 5.2.1.2 (line 16 and 17). Product spills into the outer tank can
vary from a small spill to a full spill.
44 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Consideration should be given to
extending the thermal corner
protection to some nominal distance
above the normal thermal corner
protection. if the potential for a full
spill exists.
160. CB&I 63 11 63 16 R5.2.1.2: Define “normal thermal corner For future action. 2010.12.20
protection” in terms of height. Web Ballot
161. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 63 21 61 6-11 Typical secondary containments do not install Agree. Use suggested wording. 2011.02.18
systems to handle small spills. Suggest rewording Webinar
the commentary as follow: “Small spills are typically Small spills are typically spills whose
spills whose resultant liquid levels are not above the resultant liquid levels are not above
top of the thermal corner protection. Therefore the the top of the thermal corner
concrete wall and foundation typically do not protection. Therefore the concrete
experience significant thermal gradients as a result wall and foundation typically do not
of the spill. experience significant thermal
gradients as a result of the spill.
Large spills are spills whose resultant liquid levels
are above the above the top of thermal corner Large spills are spills whose resultant
protection. Therefore the concrete wall is subject to liquid levels are above the above the
significant thermal gradients during both the top of thermal corner protection.
transient and steady state phases.” Therefore the concrete wall is
subject to significant thermal
Necessary details Definition of the moisture-gradient gradients during both the transient
loading needed required for design of the structure and steady state phases.”
should be provided in the project specifications.
Necessary details Definition of the
moisture-gradient loading needed
required for design of the structure
should be provided in the project
specifications.
162. CB&I 64 1, 7 64 6, 12 5.2.2: Define mandatory decommissioning loads. For future action. 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
Agree. Editorial.
163. Hjorteset, Kare 65 1 65 1 I propose deleting Table 5.1 on page 65, and adding For future action. 2010.12.20
45 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
two new tables for primary and secondary tanks SLS Web Ballot
cases. The new SLS tables will mirror ULS tables
except:
· Load factors above 1.0 will be reduced to 1.0.
· Columns for abnormal loading conditions
except for OBE will be removed.
· Rows for SSE, Explosion and Impact, and Fire
will be removed.
· Row for anchorages will be removed.
· Rows for Thermal and/or Moisture: Spill and
Fire will be removed.
The new SLS tables should be located before the ULS
tables in the Code.
References to Table 5.1 in page 64 line 13, and page

163 line 119 will need to be changed to reflect
reference to new SLS tables.
164. CB&I 65 1 65 1 Table 5.1 For future action. 2010.12.20
a) internal gas pressure should be considered Web Ballot
for abnormal condition of external fire.
b) Thermal and/or moisture should be
replaced with individual lines for thermal,
and moisture.
c) Thermally induced (product) loading should
be included with abnormal loads OBE, SSE
and explosion (especially for single
containment tanks).
d) Spill SSEaft Additional loading type row
SSEAFT should be added.
165. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 65 1 65 1 Table 5.1, third line from bottom: Under Seismic For future action. 2010.12.20
Team Loads, there should be another line “SSEAFT”. Spill Web Ballot
and SSE should not be combined as this is unlikely
and would be a very conservative combination. The
combination should be Spill and SSEAFT as specified in
Section 6.3.6.
46 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
166. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 65 1 65 1 Table: In the first column, Seismic loads – Add a row Withdrawn 2011.03.18
for SSE aft under SSE and remove the X from that spill Webinar
column. Place an X in the Spill + SSE aft column.
167. Krstulovic, Neven 65 1 65 1 Table 5.1 To provide a clear explanation on how NK #3 (Gap analysis #17, rank #3) 2010.11.05
would Table 3.1 be used, introduce the following Web Ballot
text to Commentary: for 5.2.2:
“Table 5.1 is a load combination matrix. As an

example, in Table 5.1 each column lists loads that
occur during a stage or event of the structure’s life
cycle, such as:
Operations:
Load combination = DL + PS + (Liquid + vapor)
pressure + Normal thermal and moisture +
shrinkage + creep + LL + Settlement +
environmental (wind, snow, etc).
Note that normal thermal load is the gradient

between the inner and outer faces of a concrete
wall. For tank cooling, this would be replaced by the
transient cooldown thermal and moisture
conditions.
Abnormal:
DL + PS + (liquid + vapor) pressure + shrinkage +
creep + LL + Settlement + + Normal thermal
and moisture + seismic
Or + Spill thermal and moisture
Or + fire thermal and moisture
Load factors are defined in section 5.2.”

168. American Petroleum 65 2 65 2 Note a is not very clear when you consider that Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Institute single containment tank systems may be either Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task single or double wall. We suggest instead Note a: Will also apply to the
47 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Group “Note a: Will also apply to the primary tank of a primary tank of a single containment
single wall tank system.” tanks wall tank system.
169. CB&I 66 6 66 6 Editorial: 6.1: Section should state, “…minimum Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
performance criteria defined in Section 6.2 through Web Ballot
6.5 and the…” 6.1—General
Design of concrete primary and
concrete secondary containers shall
comply with applicable requirements
of ACI 350, minimum performance
criteria defined in Sections 6.2
through 4.4 6.5 and the materials
requirements in Sections 6.6 to 6.9
of this Code .
170. Matrix Service 66 11 63 14-16 Suggest rewording or deleting second sentence This sentence implies that the 2011.03.18
(Pullinger) since for secondary containment the potential for a embedment is not an adequate seal Webinar
full spill always exists. What is this sentence trying in the event of a spill yet this is the
to indicate? accepted concept for the TCP.
Delete the first and second sentence

of the paragraph's text.
171. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 67 10 64 1 This paragraph begins a new topic. Suggest giving 2010.12.20
Disagree.
section a new paragraph number (5.2.3?). Also Web Ballot
move last sentence as suggested in pervious
Section 5.2.2 reads appropriately.
comment.
172. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 67 11 64 2 Suggest moving to 5.2.2.a.1 to read as follows: Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
“Construction related loading condition, including Web Ballot
the sequence of construction and the post- 5.2.2—Load combinations for
tensioning sequence.” concrete structure
Load combinations occurring during
all stages of construction and the
entire life of the structure shall be
considered. These include, but are
not limited, to:
a) Normal loading conditions:
1) Construction-related loading
48 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
condition including the sequence of
construction and the post-
tensioning sequence;
2) Installation-related loading
condition;
173. Krstulovic, Neven 67 12 67 12 R6.1 Both ACI 372R and ACI 373R apply here. NK #13 (Gap analysis #--) 2010.10.24
Therefore, introduce the following change: D.J., Pawski, Ballard, Howe, NKO, Pittsburgh
“Applicable recommendations reported in ACI 372R Domas, Hoff, Garrison, Hoptay
and ACI 373R should be followed for…” supported (100%)
174. Legatos, Nicholas A. 67 12 67 12 Sec. R6.1, Line 12: “Applicable recommendations Accepted - see 174 for response. 2010.10.24
reported in ACI 372R and ACI 373R should be Pittsburgh
followed for…”
175. Krstulovic, Neven 67 13 67 13 R6.1 To clarify meaning, introduce the following NK #14 (Gap analysis #--) 2010.10.24
change: D.J., Pawski, Ballard, Howe, NKO, Pittsburgh
“…installation of prestressed concrete tanks.” Domas, Hoff, Garrison, Hoptay
supported (100%)
176. Legatos, Nicholas A. 67 13 67 13 Sec. R6.1, Line 13: “…installation of prestressed Accepted - see 175 for response. 2010.10.24
concrete tanks“ Pittsburgh
177. American Petroleum 67 17 67 17 The material used for inner tank in the installed For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute condition shall be demonstrated to be capable of Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task being purged of natural gas during Agree with the statement but this
Group decommissioning. The natural gas remaining shall does not seem to be the
not be significant and shall not increase the appropriate place for insertion.
combustibility of material. In order to meet this
requirement, necessary inspection and testing Existing text reads as follows:
requirements shall be included in this code.
6.2.1—Minimum performance
criteria presented in Sections 6.2.2
through 6.2.16 shall be satisfied
when a primary concrete container is
used.
178. CB&I 67 22 67 22 6.2.2: Why is it that the primary container is not For future action. 2010.12.20
required to remain liquid tight for the SSE loading Web Ballot
49 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
condition? Is the intent of the Code that any
earthquake exceeding OBE level follows by a product
leak from the primary container? Steel inner tanks
are typically designed to withstand the SSE load
condition without leak.
179. Krstulovic, Neven 68 1 68 1 6.2.3 The minimum residual average compressive JUSTIFICATION: The minimum 2010.11.16
stress within the compressive zone of 145 lb/in 2 has residual average compressive stress Web Ballot
been defined on the Commentary Side. To be within the compressive zone of 145
consistent with 6.3.3 (b) where the stress limit is lb/in2 has been defined on the
provided on the Commentary side, move the stress Commentary Side. To be consistent
definition from the Commentary R6.2.3 to the Code with 6.3.3 (b) where the stress limit
6.2.3 side. is provided on the Code side, move
the stress definition from the
6.2.3—Unless a leak-tight membrane/liner has been Commentary R6.2.3 to the Code
used, minimum requirements for liquid tightness in 6.2.3 side, as shown below:
the concrete wall and in the concrete base shall be:
a) Under empty and operation load conditions, the PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE:
net resultant force in a section shall be “6.2.3—Unless a leak-tight
compression; and membrane/liner has been used,
b) Under empty, operation load, and operation load minimum requirements for liquid
plus OBE conditions, a compressive zone of either tightness in the concrete wall and in
50% of the section thickness or 8 in., whichever is the concrete base shall be:
greater, shall be maintained. d) Under empty and operation load
c) Unless liquid tightness under given conditions is conditions, the net resultant force
proven using other methods, a minimum residual in a section shall be compression;
average compressive stress within the and
compressive zone of 145 lb/in.2 should be e) Under empty, operation load, and
maintained in both the vertical and the operation load plus OBE
circumferential directions. conditions, a compressive zone of
either 50% of the section
R6.2.3—The liquid tightness requirements are thickness or 8 in., whichever is
applicable for the empty, operation, and OBE greater, shall be maintained.
conditions. f) Unless liquid tightness under
Unless liquid tightness under given given conditions is proven using
conditions is proven using other methods, a other methods, a minimum
50 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
minimum residual average compressive stress within residual average compressive
the compressive zone of 145 lb/in.2 should be stress within the compressive
maintained in both the vertical and the zone of 145 lb/in.2 should be
circumferential directions. maintained in both the vertical
and the circumferential
directions.
R6.2.3—The liquid tightness

requirements are applicable for the
empty, operation, and OBE
conditions.
Unless liquid tightness under given
conditions is proven using other
methods, a minimum residual
average compressive stress within
the compressive zone of 145 lb/in.2
should be maintained in both the
vertical and the circumferential
directions. “
180. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 68 1 65 2 What will apply to single containment tanks? Should Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
note “a” read: “This table is also applicable to single Web Ballot
containment tanks”? See response to 168.
181. CB&I 68 7 68 7 6.2.3.b): At the end of item b), add the words “in Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
both the vertical and the circumferential directions” Web Ballot
6.2.3—Unless a leak-tight
membrane/liner has been used,
minimum requirements for liquid
tightness in the concrete wall and in
the concrete base shall be:
a) Under empty and operation load
conditions, the net resultant force in
a section shall be compression; and
b) Under empty, operation load, and
operation load plus OBE conditions,
a compressive zone of either 50% of
51 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
the section thickness or 8 in.,
whichever is greater, shall be
maintained in both the vertical and
the circumferential directions.
182. CB&I 69 3-4 69 3-4 6.2.5: This section states that the primary container For future action. 2010.12.20
shall retain “containment capability” under SSE and Web Ballot
SSEaft events. Is containment capability different
from liquid tightness?
§6.2.2 does not require that the inner tank remain
“liquid tight” under SSE conditions while this
paragraph requires “containment capability”.
Is “liquid tightness" and “containment capability”
the same or different. Please clarify in sections 6.2.2
and 6.2.3 and add definitions in section 2.2 as
appropriate.
183. American Petroleum 69 3 69 3 6.2.5 “containment capability” should be described For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute more specifically. Web Ballot
Group
184. CB&I 69 10-11 69 10-11 6.2.8: a) Remove the words “Under design loading”. For future action. 2010.12.20
These words only cause confusion and do not add Web Ballot
value.
b) Define whether specified limit of 0.55f’ci applies
to the average compressive stresses or extreme
fiber compressive stresses.
c) Revise wording “at transfer of maximum
prestress” to “at or after transfer (before time
dependent prestress losses)”
185. American Petroleum 69 11 69 11 6.2.8 This value is 0.6fci by ACI318. For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task Could not locate this value in ACI
Group 318.
186. CB&I 69 12 69 12 6.2.9: Change the wording from currently shown to: Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
“Under normal conditions, the maximum concrete Web Ballot
extreme fiber compression stresses at service loads 6.2.9—Under normal conditions the
52 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
(after allowance for all prestress losses) shall not maximum concrete extreme fiber
exceed:” compression compressive stresses at
service loads (afer allowance for all
prestress losses) shall not exceed:
a) 0.45 fc′ due to prestress plus
sustained load; and
b) 0.6 fc′ due to prestress plus total
load.
187. Krstulovic, Neven 69 12 69 12 6.2.9 to 6.2.14 And 6.3.12, new 6.3.13 NK #21 (Gap analysis #) 2010.11.05
Maximum service level concrete compression and Web Ballot
tension stresses for primary and secondary
containments are not clear, and should aligned with
those in ACI 350. Revise 6.2.9 – 6.2.13 and 6.3.12 -
as follows:
6.2.9—Under normal conditions stresses in concrete

at service loads (based on uncracked section
properties, and after allowance for all prestress
losses) the maximum concrete compressive stresses
shall not exceed:
a) Extreme fiber stress in compression 0.45 fc′ due
to prestress plus sustained load
……………0.45 fc′; and
b) Extreme fiber stress in compression 0.6 fc′ due to
prestress plus total load ….. 0.6 fc′
c) Extreme fiber stress in tension in precompressed
tensile zone....................6 (f’c)^1/2
6.2.10—Under abnormal OBE conditions, the

concrete stress stresses in concrete (based on
uncracked section properties, and after allowance
for all prestress losses) due to prestress plus total
load shall not exceed. the linear elastic region of the
stress-strain curve defined in 6.2.11.
a) Extreme fiber stress in compression due to
53 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
prestress plus total load …..…0.85 fc′;
b) Extreme fiber stress in tension in precompressed
tensile zone....................7.5 (f’c)^1/2
6.2.11—Unless the limiting elastic concrete stress is

determined using other methods, a concrete stress
level of 0.85fc´ shall be used as the limiting stress
level of the linear elastic stress-strain region.
{RENUMBER AS REQUIRED!!!}
6.2.12—The effects of restrained deformation shall

be considered.
6.2.13—Concrete and steel coefficients of thermal

expansion at cryogenic over the range of operational
temperatures shall be used.
6.3.12— Under normal conditions stresses in

concrete at service loads (based on uncracked
section properties, and after allowance for all
prestress losses) the maximum concrete
compressive stresses shall not exceed:
a) Extreme fiber stress in compression 0.45 fc′ due
to prestress plus sustained load
……………0.45 fc′; and
b) Extreme fiber stress in compression 0.6 fc′ due to
prestress plus total load ….. 0.6 fc′
c) Extreme fiber stress in tension in precompressed
tensile zone....................6 (f’c)^1/2
6.3.13—Under OBE conditions, stresses in concrete

(based on uncracked section properties, and after
allowance for all prestress losses) shall not exceed.
a) Extreme fiber stress in compression due to
prestress plus total load …..…0.85 fc′;
54 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
b) Extreme fiber stress in tension in precompressed
tensile zone....................7.5 (f’c)^1/2
188. CB&I 69 16 69 16 6.2.10: Revise the wording “Under abnormal Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
condition the concrete stresses…” be changed for Web Ballot
clarity to “Under abnormal conditions the maximum 6.2.10—Under abnormal conditions,
extreme fiber concrete stresses in compression…” the maximum extreme fiber
concrete stresses in compression
concrete stress due to prestress plus
total load shall not exceed the linear
elastic region of the stress-strain
curve defined in 6.2.11.
189. Krstulovic, Neven 69 20 169 20 R10.6.2.1 The value in the commentary R10.6.2.1 JUSTIFICATION: The value in 2010.11.16
(paragraph 2) of 40 °F is inconsistent with the value the commentary R10.6.2.1 Web Ballot
of 32 °F provided on the Code side. Reconcile text (paragraph 2) of 40 °F is
as shown below: inconsistent with the value of 32
°F provided on the Code side.
“Controlling the position of the 32 40 °F isotherm Reconcile text as shown below:
prevents freezing the soil below the tank that can
PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE:
cause frost heave forces on the base of the tank.
R10.6.2.1 …………..
Frost heave may be avoided by trace heating the
“Controlling the position of the
base slab or elevating the base slab, allowing heat 32 40 °F isotherm prevents
input to the foundation through natural air freezing the soil below the tank
convection.” that can cause frost heave forces
on the base of the tank. Frost
heave may be avoided by trace
heating the base slab or elevating
the base slab, allowing heat input
to the foundation through natural
air convection.”
190. CB&I 69 21 69 21 6.2.12: Define what restrained deformation should For future action. 2010.12.20
be considered and/or add §R6.2.12 with Web Ballot
commentaries.
191. American Petroleum 70 1-2 70 1-2 6.2.14 This section specifies that “the coefficient of No action required. 2010.12.20
Institute the thermal contractions of the concrete shall be Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task confirmed by the actual mix proportion over the The coefficient is assumed in the
55 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Group range of the operational temperatures.” design and then confirmed by
The actual mix design of the concrete is done after testing while the design is under
the type and source of the concrete raw materials way to see if the assumption was
are determined, which is typically after the valid. If not, adjustments are made
completion of the design. to the design to conform to the
Therefore, it is not practical to specify that the actual value.
coefficient of the thermal contraction shall be
confirmed by the actual mix design. The code 6.2.14—The coefficient of thermal
should provide a practical guidance to determine contraction of the concrete shall be
the coefficient that should be used for the design confirmed by testing the actual mix
proportion over the range of the
operational temperatures.
192. CB&I 70 1-2 70 1-2 6.2.14: Suggest that this section be modified to Proposed wording 2011.03.18
reflect the intent of NFPA 59A section 7.5.2.1. (B). Webinar
This can be done by adding the words “unless prior "6.2.14 - The coefficient of thermal
test data on these properties are available.” At the contraction of the concrete structure
end of the text in this section. shall be confirmed by testing the
Also, Provide references to the appropriate actual mix over the range of
standards (or cross reference to other parts of this operational temperatures unless
Code) defining testing methods and testing prior test data on this property is
procedures for concrete coefficient of thermal available.
expansion at all ranges of cryogenic temperature.
Define a minimum number of temperatures within This wording comes directly from
the required temperature range at which tests to be NFPA 59A 7.5.2.1 (B). This wording
conducted. will give the designer/contractor the
ability to avoid this testing if results
form similar mixes with similar
aggregate are available but will also
give the owner the ability to enforce
this testing if they feel that the data
the engineer/contractor has is not
adequate. If this wording is not
included, then the testing will have
to be completed for every project.
193. American Petroleum 70 1 70 1 6.2.14 It should be mentioned typical value of the For future action. 2010.12.20
56 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Institute coefficient of thermal contraction rather than doing Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task test. See responses 191 and 192.
Group
194. American Petroleum 70 10 70 10 6.2.15 4.7.2 instead of 4.8.3. Response 194, 195. 2010.10.24
Institute Agree; correct reference in line 10 is Pittsburgh
Refrigerated Tank Task 4.7.2 and not 4.8.3.
Group See item 5 in April 1, 2009 email to
ACI.
195. CB&I 70 10 70 10 6.2.15.d): Cross reference is incorrect. Section 4.8.3 Response 194, 195. 2010.10.24
does not exist. Should reference be 4.7.2? See response 194 Pittsburgh
196. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 71 8 68 ?? For wire wrapped tanks how is the uncracked zone For future action. 2010.12.20
to be measured? Does the zone include the Web Ballot
shotcrete? Suggest adding a sentence to clarify.
197. CB&I 71 10 71 10 Editorial: 6.3.1: There is no section 6.3.22. The last Agree; correct reference in line 10 is 2010.10.24
sub-section of the Section 6.3 is 6.3.17. Change 6.3.17 and not 6.3.22. Pittsburgh
wording “Sections 6.3.2 through 6.3.22” to “Sections See item 6 in April 1, 2009 email to
6.3.2 through 6.3.17”. ACI.
198. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 71 13 68 10 This requirement of maintaining a minimum residual No action required. 2010.12.20
prestress level is a code requirement for secondary Web Ballot
containment but is not a code requirement for Could not identify the reference
primary containment. This seems inconsistent. source noted
Suggest moving this requirement from R6.2.3 and by the commenter.
placing on the code side after 6.2.2.c.
For future action
199. CB&I 71 13-14 71 13-14 6.3.2: a) Re-phrase for clarity: Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Change wording “based upon minimum depth of Web Ballot
compression and precompression” to “as defined in 6.3.2—Under spill conditions, the
section 6.3.3.” concrete above the thermal corner
b) Re-phrase to make clear that the same liquid protection (TCP) shall remain liquid
tightness requirements at spill apply to the following tight, based upon minimum depths
parts of the tank: of compression and pre-
i. wall above the TCP potentially in contact compression as defined in section
with spilled liquid in case a TCP system and a 6.3.3.
secondary bottom are provided
ii. bottom slab and wall potentially in contact The same liquid tightness
57 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
with spilled liquid in case the TCP/secondary requirements at spill shall also apply
bottom are not provided. to the following parts of the tank:
a. the wall above the TCP
potentially in contact with
spilled liquid when a TCP
system and a secondary
bottom are provided, and
b. the bottom slab and wall
potentially in contact with
spilled liquid in case the
TCP/secondary bottom are not
provided.
200. American Petroleum 71 15 71 15 6.3.3 This implies that the required compression Editorial. No change needed. 2010.12.16
Institute zone in a concrete secondary container is only Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task required if there is no leak-tight membrane/liner. This is issue of interpretation.
Group But it is common to design a liner that is not
expected to remain leak-tight in the event of liquid § 6.3.3 states that unless a leak-tight
filling the annular space. In that arrangement it is membrane / liner is used, a
important that concrete compression zones are minimum - compression-zone
maintained to ensure concrete liquid tightness even requirement must be satisfied.
though a liner is provided. Such a liner is leak-tight, Hence, if a liner is not leak-tight, as is
but only during normal operation. the case with a “wallpaper” liner
under spill conditions, the minimum
- compression-zone requirement
must be satisfied.
201. CB&I 71 19 71 19 6.3.3.b): Remove the word “residual”. The word Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
“residual” is not required and may be confusing. Webinar
6.3.3—Unless a leak-tight
membrane/liner has been used, a
minimum portion of the concrete
shall remain in compression in
accordance with the following:
a) a compressive zone of either 10%
of the section thickness or 3.5 in.,
whichever is greater shall be
provided; and
58 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
b) a minimum residual average
compressive stress within the
compressive zone of 145 lb/in2 shall
be maintained.
202. CB&I 71 21-22 71 21-22 6.3.4: Define the method for crack width calculation Discussed. Editorial. 2010.12.16
at cryogenic temperature. Webinar
Add a referral note to Section
8.1.1.8.
6.3.4—Calculated crack widths shall

be considered at TCP embedment
when cracking would result in liquid
product migrating behind the TCP
and compromising its effectiveness.
The embedment zone shall extend a
minimum of two times the wall
thickness above the TCP anchorage.
Calculated crack widths shall not
exceed 0.004 in. within the TCP
embedment zone.
Recommendations for crack width
calculations are provided in 8.1.1.8.
Also, for future action.

A note to be added to state to use
the same as at room temperature.
Note that Code already specifies that

room temperature values be used in
the design when selecting the
elastic modulus and the concrete
strength (see § 6.6.5.5 and 6.6.5.6,
respectively).
203. CB&I 72 4-6 72 4-6 R6.3.4: Provide more guidance on required time- Disagree. No change needed. 2010.12.16
history analysis. Specify/recommend minimum Webinar
59 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
number of product levels to be considered for such Defining specific product levels
transient analysis. Otherwise, analysis becomes too would be too prescriptive. It should
subjective and amount of work may be infinite. be the responsibility of the design
engineer to identify governing
conditions for a particular
temperature history.
204. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 72 9 69 3 Why does the primary tank need to only “retain its Considered and discussed at length 2010.12.16
containment capability” for an SSE event? This is during document development Webinar
inconsistent with the design of the secondary balloting.
containment under spill conditions which is required
to remain liquid tight. The requirements of 6.2.6 This is NFPA 59A requirement. NFPA
specify a larger minimum compression zone for 59A section 7.2.2.5-D requires that
primary containers than for secondary containers. there is no loss of containment
R6.1d refers to the maximum resulting stresses and capability for the primary container
refers to NFPA 59A which limits the rebar stress to during and after an SSE.
yield and the prestressing steel to 94% of yield.
Both requirements are consistent with a container For future action.
remaining leak tight under the SSE loading. Suggest
requiring the primary container be designed to be
liquid tight for all loadings including a SSE loading.
205. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 72 11 72 11 6.3.6 “The secondary concrete containment shall be Agree. 2010.12.16
Team designed for the SSEaft event while containing the Webinar
total volume of spilled product.” Comment: This is a For future action.
good requirement but not consistent with NFPA59A.
See above comment.
206. CB&I 72 15-16 72 15-16 6.3.8: a) Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
a) Cross reference is incorrect. Section 4.8.3 does Webinar
not exist. Should reference be 4.7.2? Note: NOT 4.7.2 which is for temp. below
0 F.)
6.3.8—Nonprestressed
reinforcement, including plate steel
used in composite action with
concrete, at service temperatures
down to 0 °F shall comply with
60 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Section 4.8.2 4.7.1 of this Code.
Also, See item 7 response in April 1,

b) Re-phrase for clarity: 2009 email to ACI.
Instead of “… at service temperature down to 0°F…”
suggest b) Disagree.
“… exposed to temperature of 0°F or lower during
normal service conditions…” Section 6.3.8 relates to service
temperatures DOWN TO 0F. CB&I’s
suggestion changes it to 0F or
LOWER. Section 6.3.9 refers to that
case.
Will consider this again as future

action.
207. American Petroleum 72 16 72 16 6.3.8 Suggest delete “at service temperatures down Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
Institute to 0F” for consistency with section 4.8.2 since 4.8.2 Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task seems to be addressed to all temperatures. Also see response 206-a.
Group
208. American Petroleum 72 22 72 22 6.3.10 “withstand” should be described more Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
Institute specifically. Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task Change to “shall not fail”.
Group
6.3.10—The secondary tank shall
withstand shall not fail the OBE and
the SSE events while empty.
209. CB&I 73 1-2 73 1-2 6.3.11: 2010.12.16
a) Remove the words “Under design loading”. This a) Agree. Editorial. Webinar
only causes confusion and does not add value.
6.3.11—Under design loading,
61 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
cConcrete compressive stress at
b) Define whether specified limit of 0.55f’ci applies transfer of maximum
to the average compressive stresses or extreme prestress shall not exceed 0.55 f′ci.
fiber compressive stresses
See further change in item c below.
b) No action required. This is a

question of terminology.
R6.3.11 refers to ACI 373R for further

information. ACI 373R states:
3.3.3.2 Maximum initial prestress—
The circumferential compressive
stress in the core wall and buttresses
produced by the unfactored initial
prestress force should not exceed
0.55f’ci for concrete. This stress
should be determined based on the
net core wall area, after deducting
for openings, duct areas and
recesses.
Current requirement is self

explanatory. It implies that no
compressive stress can EXCEED the
limit anywhere in the section.
Hence, it does NOT refer to an
AVERAGE stress value, but the
MAXIMUM value.
C) Agree. Editorial. Copy text from

ACI 318:
c) Revise wording “at transfer of maximum
“shall not exceed …..”
prestress” to “at or after transfer (before time
dependent prestress losses)” 6.3.11—Under design loading,
cConcrete compressive stress at
62 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
transfer of maximum
prestress Stresses in concrete
immediately after prestress transfer
(before time-dependent prestress
losses) shall not exceed 0.55 f′ci.
210. American Petroleum 73 1 73 2 6.3.11 This value is 0.6fci by ACI318. No change necessary. Editorial. 2010.12.16
Institute Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task Commentary R6.3.11 clearly refers to
Group ACI 373R for further information, not
ACI 318. ACI 373R states:
3.3.3.2 Maximum initial prestress—

The circumferential compressive
stress in the core wall and buttresses
produced by the unfactored initial
prestress force should not exceed
0.55f’ci for concrete. This stress
should be determined based on the
net core wall area, after deducting
for openings, duct areas and
recesses.
211. Krstulovic, Neven 73 3 73 3 R6.3.11 Both ACI 372R and ACI 373R apply here. NK #15 (Gap analysis #--) 2010.10.24
Therefore, introduce the following change: D.J., Pawski, Ballard, Howe, NKO, Pittsburgh
“R6.3.11 - See ACI 372R and ACI 373R for further Domas, Hoff, Garrison, Hoptay Meier
information” supported (100%)
212. Legatos, Nicholas A. 73 3 73 3 Sec. R6.3.11 - “See ACI 373R for further information Accepted - see 211 for response. 2010.10.24
Pittsburgh
213. CB&I 73 4 73 4 6.3.12: Change the wording from currently shown Disagree. Editorial. No change 2010.12.16
to: needed. Not persuasive. Webinar
“Under normal conditions, the maximum concrete
extreme fiber compression stresses at service loads Current requirement for “maximum
(after allowance for all prestress losses) shall not concrete compression” is self
exceed:” explanatory. It implies that no
compressive stress can EXCEED the
63 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
limit anywhere in the section.
Hence, it does NOT refer to an
AVERAGE stress value, but the
MAXIMUM value.
Requirement references two specific

cases: (a) prestress plus sustained
load, and (b) prestress plus total
load. Adding “at service loads” will
change the intent of this paragraph.
214. American Petroleum 73 9 73 9 6.3.14 Indirectly in EN14620, (via EN1992) crack Discussed at length. Leave as is in 2010.12.16
Institute limit is indicated as 0.2mm(=0.008in) for prestressed current document. Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task members. Consider whether major international
Group codes like ACI and EN should be consistent. Also For future action.
crack width limit requirement for foundation piles
may be different and should be addressed also.
215. CB&I 73 9-10 73 9-10 6.3.14: 2010.12.16
a) Do crack widths need to be checked for all a) Discussed at length. Persuasive. Webinar
“normal situations”. Typically crack width criteria
does not have to be satisfied for transient loads such 6.3.4—Calculated crack
as wind (environmental load). Based on this, replace widths shall be considered at TCP
“normal design loading” with “construction and embedment when cracking would
operating loading conditions”. result in liquid product migrating
behind the TCP and compromising
its effectiveness.
The embedment zone shall
extend a minimum of two times the
wall thickness above the TCP
anchorage. Calculated crack widths
shall not exceed 0.004 0.008 in.
within the TCP embedment zone.
6.3.14—Under normal
Also: design loading excluding wind,
b) Define a method for crack width calculations or calculated crack widths within the
provide a cross reference to the other Sections of wall and the base slab shall not
64 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
the Code, which defines the method exceed 0.012 in.
b) Editorial: Defined in the Analysis

chapter. Leave as is.
This Chapter defines minimum

performance requirements, i.e., in
this case crack width limit. How to
calculate crack width is defined in
the Analysis chapter §8.1.1.8.
c) Discussed at length. Editorial.

c) Contradicts to ACI350 §10.6.4, which gives an Leave as is in current document.
indirect method for limiting crack width. ACI350
method is based on a smaller allowable crack width. For future action.
Does the tank need to comply with ACI350 §10.6.4
or not?
d) Discussed at length. No action

required.
d) Inconsistent with 6.3.17.2 and 6.8.2.f) for non-
metallic liner It would be very difficult to define
Both 6.3.17.2 and 6.8.2.f) requires non-metallic and verify crack opening velocities
vapor barrier to be intact and fully functional after and crack limits during a seismic
OBE i.e. be able to bridge cracks. This section should event. Instead section 6.3.17.2
therefore also state that crack widths shall also be (page 74, lines 6-8) defines
calculated for the OBE case where non-metallic corresponding performance
vapor barriers are used. requirement as:
(see also comments on §6.8.2) “During an OBE event the vapor barrier
can experience elongation strain rates
induced by crack opening velocities. The
vapor barrier should remain functional
after an OBE event.”
It is therefore left to the designer to
verify that a given vapor barrier type
satisfies this performance
65 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
requirement.
216. CB&I 73 11-13 73 11-13 6.3.15: Add a §R6.3.15 with some discussion on this No action required. 2010.12.16
subject to explain better the intent of this Webinar
paragraph. As there are no suggestions and
since no justification or proposed
text were provided, this will be
considered for future action.
217. American Petroleum 73 14 73 14 6.3.16 Add “under normal service conditions” after Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
Institute the sentence. Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task 6.3.16—In the case of full
Group containment tanks, vapor and
moisture transmission through the
secondary container shall be
prevented by means of an
impervious barrier under normal
service conditions.
218. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 73 16 Suggest adding the following to be consistent with CHECK TO SEE IF RESPONSE 192 2011.03.18
NFPA 59A requirements: actual mix proportions over APPLIES Webinar
the range of operational temperatures unless prior
data on this property is available.
219. American Petroleum 73 21 73 21 6.3.16.1 It’s not clear, but it seems that probably Editorial: Agreed. Change reference 2010.10.24
Institute the reference should be to 6.9 rather than 6.8. 6.8 to reference 6.9 – Metal Pittsburgh
Refrigerated Tank Task Components
Group This used to be § 4.3.18 which
referenced § 7.6.1 – Metal
Components
220. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 73 22 70 7 Editorial: “ shall be provided in to accommodate Editorial: Agreed. Remove “in” 2010.10.24
JH[same liquid” Pittsburgh
]
221. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 74 1 70 10?? Why if nonprestressed reinforcement is ductile at No action required. Editorial: 2010.12.16
cryogenic temperature are the stresses limited to Webinar
low stress design? Editorial paragraph 4.8.3 does There is no R4.8.3. Explanation is in
not cover reinforcing steel, should be 4.7.2. R4.7.2.
“4.7.2—Deformed reinforcement at
66 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
service temperatures below 0 °F”
222. CB&I 74 6-8 74 6-8 6.3.17.2: a) Does it mean that after any seismic No action required. Editorial. Not 2010.12.16
event exceeding an OBE level (even slightly) a non- persuasive. Webinar
metallic liner is allowed to loose its vapor and
moisture containment capabilities? NFPA 59A (§ 7.2.2.2) states that:
“The LNG container and its impounding
system shall be designed for the
following two levels of seismic ground
motion:
(1) The safe shutdown earthquake (SSE)
….,
(2) The operating basis earthquake
(ORE) …”
Hence, the design deals with

conditions AT OBE and AT SSE. The
design does not consider cases
BEWTEEN OBE and SSE. ACI 376
design requirements follow the same
approach.
223. CB&I 74 11-13 74 11-13 6.4: 2010.12.16
a) Either add other transient and accidental loads a) Editorial: Leave as is. Webinar
such as wind, blast, external fire, etc. to the list of Listed loads are only given as an
transient loads or example and not as a comprehensive
just state “Ultimate strength design shall be used list of all transient loads. Therefore
for transient conditions.” and explain what transient no need to change.
conditions are in the Commentaries. Add §R6.4. TO DISCUSS: Can examples be left
on the Code side or must they be
moved to the Commentary Side?
b) Editorial: Leave as is.
Chapter 6 only provides performance

b) Either define a method for crack width requirements and not methods of
calculations or provide a cross reference to the other analysis, which are provided in
67 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
Section of the Code, which defines the method. Chapter 8. More specifically,
recommendations for crack width
calculations are provided in §8.1.1.7
(page 108, line 1).
c) This issue was discussed at length

by the Committee. It would be very
difficult to define and verify crack
opening velocities and crack limits
during a seismic event. Instead
section 6.3.17.2 (page 74, lines 6-8)
c) Does crack width need to be controlled for seismic defines corresponding performance
conditions when non-metallic liner is used? requirement as:
“During an OBE event the vapor
barrier can experience elongation
strain rates induced by crack
opening velocities. The vapor barrier
should remain functional after an
OBE event.”
It is therefore left to the designer to
verify that a given vapor barrier type
satisfies this performance
requirement.
d) Editorial: Leave as is.

The paragraph clearly states that the
crack limit (=SLS condition) must be
satisfied for ALL normal loading
conditions, except for transient
loads. For transient loads ULS design
shall be used instead of verifying
that the crack width limit has not be
d) Do crack widths need to be checked for all exceeded, i.e. SLS design is not used
68 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
“normal situations”. Typically crack width criteria in this case.
does not have to be satisfied for transient loads such
as wind (environmental load). Based on this, replace
“normal design loading” with “construction and
operating loading conditions”.
224. Krstulovic, Neven 75 12-13 75 12-13 R6.5.1 To clarify meaning, introduce the following NK #16 (Gap analysis #--) 2010.10.24
change to line 12: D.J., Pawski, Ballard, Howe, NKO, Pittsburgh
“…an elevated tank is used, the bearing capacity of Domas, Hoff, Garrison, Hoptay,
piers supporting the tank base exposed to thermal Meier supported (100%)
radiation should also be checked.”
225. Legatos, Nicholas A. 75 12-13 75 12-13 Sec. R6.5.1, Line 12: “…an elevated tank is used, the Accepted - see 224 for response. 2010.10.24
bearing capacity of piers supporting the tank base Pittsburgh
exposed to thermal radiation should also be
checked.”
226. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 75 14 Other than the spill load case, do these Disagree. 2010.12.16
requirements apply to other load combinations such Leave as is consider as future Webinar
as Spill + SSE aft? Suggest adding a paragraph that business
addresses which load combinations need to comply
with this requirement.
227. Matrix Service 75 16 71 17 Is the 3.5” minimum depth of compression No action required. Editorial. 2010.12.16
(Pullinger) measured from the outside surface or does it Webinar
exclude the cover? Suggest stating how the Since concrete remains in elastic
compression zone is to be measured for the compression throughout its life,
secondary container. cover concrete contributes to section
capacity. As in any other RC and PSC
design, concrete cover is included,
i.e., the compression zone depth is
measured from the outside concrete
surface.
228. American Petroleum 75, 85 17, 1 75 17, 1 6.6 & 6.7 Concrete quality and properties belong in Disagree. It’s a matter of 2010.12.16
Institute , 85 Section 4, Materials interpretation. Webinar
Group Chapter 4 describes only individual
material requirements, not the
performance of the concrete. Was
69 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
included in Editing Version #8 in the
Design and Analysis Chapter. Moved
to the Minimum Performance
Chapter in the Provisional Code
document as it provides the
minimum requirements for the
concrete.
229. CB&I 75 21-22 75 21-22 6.6.1: Does this section intend to state that 4000psi Agree. 2010.12.16
concrete is acceptable for the prestressed secondary Webinar
containment which usually does not contain liquid? For future action.
Create a list that specifically states required
minimum concrete strengths:
Primary Slab: 5000psi
Primary Wall: 5000psi
Secondary Slab: 4000psi
Secondary Wall: 5000psi
Secondary Roof:4000psi
230. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 76 21 JH[72] 15 Editorial: Section 4.7 and 4.8 Agree in principle. Editorial. In 6.3.8, 2010.12.16
Webinar
There is no R4.8.3. Explanation is in

R4.7.2.
“4.7.2—Deformed reinforcement at
service temperatures below 0 °F”
231. CB&I 77-79 ALL 77 ALL 6.6.5.1-6.6.5.3: These sections should provide to the No action required. Editorial. 2010.12.16
-79 designer clear instructions what to use instead of a Webinar
wish list of what needs to be considered. Current text is sufficiently generic
1) To support normal construction schedule and clear that no additional tables
70 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
concrete design typically must be are needed.
completed before mix trials are finalized
and moisture content of concrete and/or See comment 228 above.
other mix-specific properties such as
thermal conductivity,. coefficient of thermal
contraction can possibly be determined.
The Code should specify the most realistic
values to be used for the design prior all
necessary testing is complete and values
confirmed. Otherwise, sections 6.6.5.1-
6.6.5.3 have no practical meaning.
2) Concrete moisture content changes with
time and ambient conditions. Temperature
dependent properties will change as well. Is
it an intent of the Code to run a moisture
monitoring program for the lifetime of the
tank?
232. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 77 2 77 3 The sentence ends with “…refer to.” It should be Agree. Editorial: 2010.12.16
Team appropriately completed. Webinar
R6.6.5—For information on the
cryogenic behavior of
reinforced/prestressed concrete,
refer to the Cited References in the
Commentary References portion of
this Code. The values of the material
properties listed in the Commentary
are typical values provided for
reference. The Engineer may use
different values if verified by tests on
the specific mix, or based on prior
test data.
233. Conlon, John F. 77 3 77 3 in R6.6.5; is there a x-ref. missing Editorial. See 232. 2010.12.16
Webinar
234. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 77 5 Why if nonprestressed reinforcement is ductile at See response to comment 221. 2010.12.16
cryogenic temperature are the stresses limited to Webinar
71 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
low stress design?
235. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 77 8 What are the minimum acceptance criteria for these No action required. 2010.12.16
loadings? Webinar
This is Section 6.6.5.1, Moisture
content of concrete, and is included
in the Code to alert the designer that
moisture content of the concrete
needs to be considered in
determining the various physical
properties of the concrete. As the
concrete used will be project
specific, there are no minimum
acceptance criteria as the concrete
will vary from job to job and location
to location.
236. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 78 14 JH[73] 20 Editorial: Sections 4.8 and 4.13 Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
Webinar
4.13—Metal liners components
R4.13—Metal liners components
In Editing Version 8, this was §

4.3.16.1 which referenced § 7.6.1 –
Metal Components. Note that this is
not section 4.8 which refers to plate
steel used as reinforcement, or
section
For future action.

In the public comment document,
we referenced what is currently
paragraph 6.9 – Metal Components.
Consider why we did not also
reference 4.13 – Metal Liners
237. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 79 3 74 6 This should be R6.3.17.2 Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
72 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Webinar
6.3.17.2—A non-metallic liner shall
be considered impervious when the
barrier system, including barrier
joints, satisfies the requirements of
Section 6.8.2.
R6.3.17.2— Bridging capability of

the liner is dependent on the loading
strain rate and temperature. During
an OBE event the vapor barrier can
experience elongation strain rates
induced by crack opening velocities.
The vapor barrier should remain
functional after an OBE event.
238. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 79 21 74 22 The first sentence of R6.5.1 repeats the code Disagree. Editorial. No change 2010.12.16
requirements. Consider deleting. required. Webinar
Text is the same as the balloted

version (see final response to TAC).
239. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 80 1 75 1-3 Suggest adding statement explaining why cellulosic No action required. 2010.12.16
fires are different from hydrocarbons fires and Webinar
provide an example of what “certain precautions” Section R6.5.1 presents known
are to be considered. behavior observed in the field. By
definition, cellulosic fires are
typically building materials on fire
and burn at about ½ the peak
temperatures of hydrocarbon fires.
For future action.

Consider including a
definition/explanation sentence.
240. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 80 9 80 9 Section 6.6.5.5 “Elastic Modulus” – usage of a term Editorial: No action required. 2010.12.16
Team such as “elastic modulus” is not appropriate as it Webinar
does not have a physical meaning, even though it is Can use both. ACI 116R - Cement and
73 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
used typically in engineering slang. The official term Concrete Terminology defines elastic
is “Modulus of Elasticity”, and is the correct term modulus as:
that should be used throughout the document.
“elastic modulus—see modulus of
elasticity (preferred term).”
241. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 80 12 80 12 “… normal production range, …” : This term is not Agree. Editorial 2010.12.16
Team widely used, and is recommended to be substituted Webinar
with “normal weight”, “lightweight” and Change as follows:
“heavyweight” concrete in compliance with other
documents such as ACI-318-08 and ACI 350-06 for 6.6.5.5—Elastic modulus
consistency. The modulus of elasticity, Ec, for
concrete shall be permitted to be
taken as specified in Section 8.5 of
ACI 350.
For concretes outside the normal

production range weight,
lightweight and heavyweight, the
value of concrete elastic modulus
for use in the design shall be that
for ambient temperature
ASTM C469; except under
conditions where underestimate of
elastic modulus may adversely
affect the design. When a higher
elastic modulus affects stresses, this
higher stiffness shall be used in
design.
242. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 81 4 81 4 “elastic modulus” – see comment to Section 6.6.5.5 Editorial: No action required. 2010.12.16
Team above. Webinar
See response to comment 240.
243. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 82 6 77 1 6.6.5 Wording from previous versions of the Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
document has been removed. Suggest including the Webinar
following wording from Version to TAC:” The 6.6.5—Cryogenic response of
behavior of concrete at cryogenic temperature shall concrete
74 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
be considered included in the in the determination The behavior of concrete at
of the performance and integrity of the structure.” cryogenic temperature shall be
considered included in the in the
determination of the performance
and integrity of the structure.
Also see response to comment 232

244. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 83 8 JH[78] 2 Editorial: First paragraph text is incorrect. Should Editorial: No action required. 2010.12.16
have text from previous version: “The design of Webinar
concrete members shall consider include thermal This text was removed in the final
deformations over the appropriate temperature and response to TAC (see corresponding
moisture range.” file):
“The design of concrete members shall
consider
thermal deformations over the
appropriate temperature and moisture
ranges.”
245. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 83 20 JH[78] 13 Editorial: ASTM reference is incorrect – Delete Discuss 2010.10.24
Pittsburgh
Editorial: Agreed – delete (see
version sent back to TAC).
REFERENCES IN 376 TO TAC TO BE ADDED TO
COMMENTARY Response to TAC 208 was:
2.30 Rostasy, F. S., and Wiedemann, G., “Stress, "The commentary has been revised
Deformation and Thermal Strains of Concrete at to include references to: 2.30, 2.38,
Cryogenic Conditions, Proceedings, 1st International and 2.41, which contains the
Conference on Cryogenic Concrete, Newcastle, 1981. requested information."
2.38 Krstulovic-Opara, N., “Performance of REFERENCES FROM 376 to TAC in

Reinforced and Prestressed Concretes in Cryogenic the PUBLIC COMMENT VERSION.
Environments,” Mindess Symposium; Concrete:
Bridging Materials and Structures, ConMat05, Third
International Conference on Construction Materials {Shown to left for brevity
– Performance, Innovations and Structural
Applications, Vancouver, Canada, 2005.
75 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
2.41 CRD-C 39-81, “Test Method for Coefficient of
Linear Thermal Expansion of Concrete,” U.S. Army PC 245 is ti DELETE this.
Corps of Engineers, Available from the National
Institute of Building Science, United Facilities Guide
Specifications (UFGS), Specifications Library. Whole
Building Design Guide (WBDG), Washington, DC,
(http://www.wbdg.org).
2.42 ASTM D4611-86, “Standard Test Method for

Specific Heat of Rock and Soild,” ASTM Book of
Standards, V. 04:08, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2004, 4 pp.
OTHERS THAT COULD BE ADDED from 376 to TAC

2.40 Krstulovic-Opara, N., “Liquefied Natural Gas
Storage: Material Behavior of Concrete at Cryogenic
Temperatures,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 104, No. 3,
May-June 2007, pp. 297- 306.
2.43 Hirth, H. C., Jr., “Thermal Properties of Concrete

at Extreme Temperatures,” PhD dissertation,
University of California at Berkeley, 1982.
246. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 85 10 JH[80] 1 Editorial: The phrase “realistic assessment” has Editorial: Agreed. In § R6.6.5.4 2010.10.24
been removed from the code section and replaced change “realistic assessment” to Pittsburgh
with “most probable” revise commentary. “most probable”.
247. American Petroleum 85 10 85 10 6.8 Coating properties belong in Materials Editorial: Not persuasive. 2010.12.20
Refrigerated Tank Task Chapter 6 presents minimum
Group performance requirements. Section
6.8 defines requirements coatings
must meet for various uses.
248. CB&I 85 16-18 85 16-18 6.8.2.a): Is a specified moisture permeability criteria For future action. 2010.12.20
for non-metallic vapor barrier too liberal? Web Ballot
Water vapor permeability allowed by this section for
76 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
non-metallic vapor barrier leads to approximately
22lb of water in 24 hrs for an average size LNG tank
(80mø x 40m HT). Assuming that unfavorable temp-
humidity condition applies for 2.5mnth per year the
annual moisture intake is 22*75=1650 lb/year or
49500 lb for 30 years average of tank service.
Any moisture passing through the liner will be
traveling toward colder surfaces, which may create a
significant ice lenses under the perimeter of the
inner tank damaging primary concrete or steel tank
and insulation.
Understand that these requirements are copied
from EN 14620, but are they reasonable?
249. CB&I 86 3-8 86 3-8 6.8.2.f): For future action. 2010.12.20
a) Is it an intent of the Code that for any seismic Web Ballot
event even slightly exceeding the OBE level that the Existing text.
non-metallic vapor barrier can stop being f) The coating shall have sufficient
functional? flexibility to bridge calculated crack
widths. The
coating must be capable of spanning
b) What is a “calculated design crack width” here? Is across a crack that is 1.2 times wider
it a nominal crack width calculated using code than the
methods or a maximum expected crack width? It calculated design calculated crack
needs to be defined. width at normal operation
To guarantee impermeability it appears that the temperatures and at crack opening
vapor barrier should be capable bridging the velocity equal to the maximum crack
maximum expected crack width. opening velocity to be expected
during an OBE event shall be used.
The test method shall be proposed
c) Should a non-metallic liner ability to withstand by the contractor and approved by
cracking at seismic be judged only by crack opening the licensed design professional.
velocity or by both crack opening velocity and crack
width?
It appears that, similar to operating conditions, the
liner should be able to span 1.2 times of the crack
77 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
width expected at seismic to ensure that the vapor
barrier remain functional.
d) Provide a reference to the method to determine

crack opening velocity. Either refer in the Code or
add to the Commentaries (§R.6.8.2).
250. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 86 5 Editorial: The entire commentary for this section has Agreed. Editorial. Somehow the 2010.12.20
been deleted and only the first sentence applies commentary text on the modulus Web Ballot
which is new and was not accepted by the was lost between the TAC and
committee. Reinsert previous commentary and public versions.
adjust location of added sentence as appropriate.
Here's what was in editing version 7
text (to TAC version)
R2.1.5.5 - The elastic modulus of
moist concrete increases with
decreasing temperatures, while the
effect on oven-dried concrete is less
pronounced. It is generally
conservative to design using
specified ambient temperature
values. The use of ambient
temperature values, however, may
not provide the desirable
conservatism at cryogenic
temperatures under all design
conditions in which case a more
appropriate value should be used.
The elastic modulus of moist

standard-weight concrete increases
by about 50-75% between 77 °F and
-310 °F.
Thus, change R6.6.5.5 as follows:
78 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
R6.6.5.5 - The normal production

range is defined as concrete with
unit weights between 90 pcf and 150
pcf.
Compressive and tensile strengths of

moist concrete increase with
decreasing temperatures. Oven dried
concrete exhibits minor strength
gains at low temperatures. The oven
dried information is relevant because
perlite concrete may be used in oven
dried blocks. The elastic modulus of
moist concrete increases with
decreasing temperatures, while the
effect on oven-dried concrete is less
pronounced.
It is generally conservative to design

using specified ambient temperature
values. Ambient temperature values
may not provide the desired
conservatism at cryogenic conditions
under all design conditions; in which
case cryogenic properties should be
used.
The elastic modulus of moist normal-

weight concrete increases by about
50-75% between 77 °F and -310 °F.
251. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 86 7-14 JH[80] 19 Editorial: Replace with correct text see above Editorial:
comment. Ask Joe for the old text he is referring
to.
79 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
ROLF: Do you have anything on
these changes?
252. American Petroleum 86 23 86 23 6.9.1 3.9.2 is clearly a bad reference. I think that Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Institute R4.8 may be intended. Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task 6.9—Metal components
Group 6.9.1—Tensile stresses at service
loads shall not exceed permissible
strength determined from allowable
stresses and weld joint efficiencies in
API 620 for the design metal
temperature determined in Section
R4.8 3.9.2.
There is an editing error in 4.8 from
previous editions. 4.8 and R4.8
should now read as follows:
4.8—Plate steel composite with

concrete
concrete
80 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Selection of plate material in API 620
Appendices Q and R depends on
design metal temperature (DMT) as
follows:
a) Appendix Q is applicable to
product temperatures to –270 °F;
and
b) Appendix R is applicable to
product temperatures at +40 to –60
°F.
253. CB&I 86 23 86 23 6.9.1: Typo. Section 3.9.2 does not exist. Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
254. CB&I 87 2-5 87 2-5 6.9.3: What is the meaning of this paragraph? Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
Reference to Table 7.1 does not make sense. Place a Webinar
“.” after the word “conditions” and remove words Change as follows:
“by using the appropriate reduction factor as shown
in Table 7.1.” 6.9.3—If a design incorporates
higher stress levels in materials than
those in API 620 that exhibit a
distinct ductile-to-brittle transition,
the design stress levels and material
strain loading rates shall be such that
the material always exhibits ductile
behavior under the most severe
projected design conditions. by using
the appropriate reduction factor as
shown in Table 7.1.
255. CB&I 87 12 87 12 Para 7.1, Table 7.1 - ACI Code 350 or 318 do not Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
address what strength reduction factors shall be No action at this time. Webinar
used under accidental/emergency events such as
SSE and spill. European (BS-EN) Code recommends For future action:
different factors for normal and accidental cases. Per Revisit this issue before the next
EN1992-1-1 Section 2.4.2.4, the material strength Code edition
81 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
reduction factors for reinforcing steel are 1.15
(persistent & transient) and 1.0 (accidental), a 15%
increase in capacity for accidental cases. For
concrete the material strength reduction factors are
1.5 (persistent & transient) and 1.2 (accidental), a
25% increase in capacity for accidental cases. Thus
the Table 7.1 strength reduction factors can be
increased in a similar manner for the
accidental/emergency cases:
256. CB&I 88 16-17 88 16-17 It is industry practice to use load factor of 1.0 for Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
dead loads under SSE and other emergency No action at this time. Webinar
conditions. ACI 350 does not apply since SSE seismic
and other emergency events are not addressed. A For future action:
load factor of 1.0 should be used for dead load when Revisit this issue before the next
applied to emergency conditions. Code edition
257. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 88 18 83 2-3 How is it conservative to obtain the intrinsic Discussed. No action necessary. 2010.12.16
permeability from dried samples if the measured Webinar
permeability is less and the permeability limit is not As moisture in concrete freezes,
to be exceeded? pores are closed and permeability
decreases. This is the reason why
concrete permeability at cryogenic
temperatures should be lower than
at room temperatures (i.e., concrete
82 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
IMpermeability INCREASES with
cryogenic temperatures). Therefore,
if moisture content is not known,
measuring permeability of dry
samples will provide conservative
values.
258. CB&I 89 14-22 89 14-22 7.2.2.2 and R7.2.2.2: This information should be in Editorial: Not persuasive. No action 2010.12.16
the analysis section, not the load factor section since required. Webinar
these requirements are met using proper analysis
models, not varying load factors. This section deals with load factors
presented in Table 7.2. The table
defines load factors for various time
depended effects, such as creep and
shrinkage, with load factors varying
between 1.0 and 1.2. Therefore,
time depended effects and related
issues are covered in §7.2.2.2 and
§R7.2.2.2.
259. CB&I 91 20 91 20 Para 7.2.8: change section reference “5.10” to Response 259, 292. 2010.10.24
“5.1.10”. Editorial. Agreed. Change 5.10 to Pittsburgh
5.1.10 at ALL of the following
locations:
 Page 91, line 20,
There is no §5.10. §5.1.110 covers

General Live Loads.
Also, items 8, 11, 12 in April 1, 2009

email to ACI.
260. CB&I 92 2,3 92 2,3 Para R7.2.8: ACI 350 specifies a live load load factor Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
of 1.0 when live load acts in combination with No action at this time. Webinar
earthquake, see ACI 350 equation (9-5). Therefore,
wording should be changed to “… under normal For future action:
83 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
loading and OBE loads conditions use load factors of Revisit this issue before the next
1.6 and 1.0, respectively”. Code edition. Check with ACI 350.
261. CB&I 92 7 92 7 Para 7.2.9 change to “Table 7.2” Editorial. Agreed. Change Table 6.2 2010.10.24
to Table 7.2 as in the rest if the Pittsburgh
chapter.
Also, see item 9 in April 1, 2009

email to ACI.
262. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 92 23 86 23 Reference to Section 3.9.2 is incorrect. What is the Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
correct reference? Web Ballot
263. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 93 3 93 3 Section R7.2.10.2 It is recommended including Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
Team some examples of “other” environmental load Webinar
effects. Change as follows:
R7.2.10.2 —Other
Other environmental load effects
(e.g., solar radiation, snow, rain,
etc.), may apply to either the
primary or secondary container,
depending on which is constructed
first or constructed in parallel.
Shielding of the primary (inner) by
the secondary (outer) container may
be considered.
264. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 93 5 87 2 This code section permits higher stress levels if the Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
material always exhibits ductile behavior. 1.) What No action at this time. Webinar
minimum requirements are required to establish
that the material is ductile? 2.) Allowable stresses Probably this should be viewed as a
are based on the strength of the material not its special case that needs to be
ductile behavior. Why does the code allow higher justified to the Owner. Since both (1)
stresses in this case? we do not want to be prescriptive
and (2) we want to allow for future
developments, it cannot be more
84 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
specific than this.
For future action:

Perhaps we can add something on
“must be demonstrated and approved by
…???....”
265. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 93 6 87 5 “by using the appropriate reduction factor as shown Agreed. See response to comment 2010.12.16
in Table 7.1” was not part of the committee 254. Webinar
document. The strength factors are not related to
the allowable stresses referred to in this section and
should not be added to this section.
266. CB&I 93 7 93 7 Define what is “other environmental loads”. “Other Agree. Editorial. See response to 2010.12.16
environmental loads” per ACI 350 Eq-9-3 are snow comment 263. Webinar
and rain (S and R).
267. CB&I 93 14 93 14 R7.2.11 Seismic Loads Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
“As per load reduction factors (LRF) industry practice No action at this time. Webinar
for the OBE condition, a load factor of 1.3 should be
used.” For future action:
Industry practice for seismic design is based on one Revisit this issue before the next
level of load. This code requires performance based Code edition.
design using three levels of load to handle the
potential for a load exceeding the design load basis.
Load factors should not be applied to performance
based design loads. Any actual load in excess of the
defined OBE load basis must then meet the SSE
performance criteria.
The OBE load factor should be 1.0
268. CB&I 93 14, 15 93 14, 15 Para R7.2.11: Per comment Error: Reference source Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
not found, OBE load factor should be 1.0. No action at this time. Webinar
For future action:

Revisit this issue before the next
Code edition.
85 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
269. CB&I 94 21-23 94 21-23 Para. R7.3.1 Per comment Error: Reference source Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
not found, A minimum load factor of 1.0 can be used No action at this time. Webinar
for dead load when in conjunction with emergency
loads. For future action:
Code edition.
270. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 94 20 88 18 Editorial: “The 1.2 load factor for dead load for OBE Editorial. Agreed. Insert “for dead 2010.10.24
JH[same loading…..” load”. Pittsburgh
]
271. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 95 1 89 1 Editorial: “The 1.0 load factor for dead load for SSE, Editorial. Agreed. Insert “for dead 2010.10.24
JH[same explosion…..” load”. Pittsburgh
]
272. CB&I 95 5-7 95 5-7 Para 7.3.1: It is industry practice to use load factor of Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
1.0 for dead loads under SSE and other emergency No action at this time. Webinar
conditions. ACI 350 does not apply since SSE seismic
and other emergency events are not addressed. A For future action:
load factor of 1.0 should be used for dead load when Revisit this issue before the next
applied to emergency conditions Code edition.
273. CB&I 96 4 96 4 Para R7.3.3 change to “..Table 7.3” Editorial. Agreed. Change Table 6.3 2010.10.24
chapter.

2009 email to ACI.
274. CB&I 98 6-8 98 6-8 R7.3.8: ACI 350 specifies a live load load factor of 1.0 Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
when live load acts in combination with earthquake, No action at this time. Webinar
see ACI 350 equation (9-5). Therefore, wording
should be changed to “… under normal loading and For future action:
OBE loads conditions use load factors of 1.6 and 1.0, Revisit this issue before the next
respectively”. Code edition.
275. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 99 3 99 3 Section R7.3.10.2 It is recommended including Editorial. Agreed. Suggest to add an 2010.10.24
Team some examples of “other” environmental load example such as: Pittsburgh
effects. “Other environmental load effect
(e.g., solar radiation, snow, rain,
etc.).....”
86 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
276. CB&I 99 4-7 99 4-7 Para R7.3.10.2: Define what is “other environmental Editorial: Agreed. See response to 2010.10.24
loads”. “Other environmental loads” per ACI 350 Eq- comment 275 Pittsburgh
9-3 are snow and rain (S and R).
277. CB&I 99 10 99 10 R7.3.11 Seismic Loads Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
Same comment for R7.2.11 above. No action at this time. Webinar
For future action:

Code edition.
278. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 99 11 99 11 “…two levels of earthquake: …” This section shall Editorial: Sounds correct. Accept? 2010.10.24
Team include three levels of earthquake: OBE, SSE, and DISCUSS Pittsburgh
SSEAFT This is for secondary container.
Should similar change be made to
R7.2.11, primary container??
279. CB&I 99 12 99 12 Para R7.3.11 Per comment Error: Reference source Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
not found, OBE load factor should be 1.0. No action at this time. Webinar
For future action:

Code edition.
280. CB&I 99 22 99 22 Para 7.3.13 change to “… Table 7.3.” Editorial. Agreed. Change Table 6.3 2010.10.24
chapter.

2009 email to ACI.
281. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 100 3 93 5 Editorial: Add wording “depending on which is Editorial: Agreed. Add 2010.10.24
JH[same constructed first or if the containers are constructed “depending on which is constructed Pittsburgh
] in parallel.” first or if both containers are
constructed in parallel.”
282. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 100 14, 16 93 14, 16 “as per load reduction factors (LRF) industry Editorial. Agreed. Remove: 2010.10.24
practice” was not part of the original committee “As per load reduction factors (LRF) Pittsburgh
text. These are load factors not load reduction industry practice for…”
factors, suggest maintaining original text.
This text was not in editing version 7
87 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
(12/12/08). It appears in the final
376 TO TAC IS AS FOLLOWS: response to TAC.
R5.2.11 – Seismic loads (Eo, Es) Following current
LNG tank practices, this Code uses two levels of To left for brevity is 376 to TAC.
earthquake: OBE and SSE. For the OBE condition, a
load factor of 1.3 should be used. For the SSE
condition, a load factor of 1.0 should be used. ROLF / GEORGE: This text was added
in the final response to TAC we sent.
R5.3.11 – Seismic loads (Eo, Es) Following current Do you have anything on the history
LNG tank practices, this Code uses two levels of of this change?
earthquake: OBE and SSE.
For the OBE condition, a load factor of 1.3 should be
used.
For the SSE condition, a load factor of 1.0 should be
used.
For the spill + SSEaft condition, a load factor of 1.0
should be used, as per ACI 350,5.1 Eq. (9-5).
Response to TAC 424 appears to be only comment to

touch on this, and it was to add the following
sentence to various code sections, including 5.3.1.1:
“The load factors shall be in accordance with in
Table 5.3.”
283. CB&I 101 1 101 1 Table 7.2 Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
Load Factors for OBE Seismic No action at this time. Webinar
OBE load factors should be 1.0
For future action:
Code edition.
284. CB&I 101 1 101 1 Additional column could be added to make clear the Editorial. No action at this time. 2010.12.16
requirements of R7.2.1 and R.7.2.3 (when to use DL Webinar
factor of 1.2 and when to use 1.4) for these R7.2.1 and R7.2.3 provide
fundamental design cases. explanation on which load factor to
use.
88 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
For future action:

Consider comment for the next Code
edition.
285. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 102 7&10 JH[94 21 Editorial: To be consistent with previous paragraphs Editorial. No action at this time. 2010.12.16
95] 1 place the discussion of OBE factors before the SSE Webinar
factors. SSEaft is a lower level eq. than OBE.
Note that SSE is already listed after
OBE, as suggested in this comment.
286. CB&I 103 1 103 1 Table 7.3 Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
Load Factors for OBE Seismic No action at this time. Webinar
OBE load factors should be 1.0
For future action:
Code edition.
287. CB&I 103 1 103 1 Table 7.3 “PRODUCT PRESSURE: Liquid” LF of “1.2” Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
should be added for “testing and commissioning” No action at this time. Webinar
and for “operation” for the design of the base slab.
For future action:
Thermally induced tank cooling and filling load Revisit this issue before the next
factor for operation should be added (mainly used Code edition.
for slab and wall). It should be “1.2”.
288. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 104 1 104 1 Table 7.3, third line from bottom: Under Seismic Editorial. No action at this time. 2010.12.16
Team Loads, there should be another line “SSEAFT”. Spill Webinar
and SSE should not be combined as this is unlikely This is the intent of the table.
and would be a very conservative combination. The
combination should be Spill and SSEAFT as specified in SSEaft case is only relevant if spill
Section 6.3.6. already occurred. “SPILL+SSEaft”
indicates that SSEaft earthquake
occurres after a spill, i.e., it occurs
after the outer container has been
filled with LNG. This is what is stated
in 6.3.6:
“6.3.3 - The secondary concrete
containment shall be designed for the
89 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
SSEaft event while containing the total
volume of spilled product.”
289. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 104 1 96 9 The load factor cannot be reduced for vapor or gas, Editorial: Agreed. Change to: 2010.10.24
wording only applies to vacuum. Suggest the “In the case of positive pressure Pittsburgh
following change: “The 1.0 load factor applied to from vapor or gas, or vacuum,
should be applied to the design gas or vapor occurring during the spill and the
pressure during a spill or spill + SSE aft loading. spill + SSEaft event, the 1.0 load
Vacuum loading during these loadings is not a factor should be used.
credible loading due to the vapor generation during
a spill so the load factor is reduced to 0.0.” Due to vapor generation during a
spill, negative pressure from vacuum
is not a credible event during for the
spill and the spill + SSEaft event.
Therefore, the load factor should be
reduced to 0.0 because the
generation of vapor during a spill
event for vacuum loading is not a
credible event.
290. American Petroleum 105 4 105 22 R8.1.1 Delete rollover. This only applies to LNG Considered and discussed at length. 2010.12.16
Institute terminals and there is a requirement for measuring No action at this time. Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task density and mixing to prevent this. Prevention is
Group absolutely essential as rollover releases an For future action:
enormous and dangerous vapor cloud. Revisit this issue before the next
Code edition.
291. American Petroleum 105 19-20 105 19-20 R8.1.1 Annual average ambient temperature is Editorial. No action required. 2010.12.16
Institute enough for the construction stage (it may be the Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task initial temperature profile). Because of the significant of
Group excessive ambient temperatures that
can occur in many places around the
World (e.g., Sakhalin, Qatar, etc.),
using average annual ambient
temperature is non conservative.
292. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 106 7 98 6 Editorial: Section 5.10 should be Section 5.1.10 Response 259, 292. 2010.10.24
JH[same Editorial. Agreed. Pittsburgh
] There is no §5.10. §5.1.110 covers
90 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
General Live Loads.

2009 email to ACI.
293. Matrix Service 106 10 55 15-23 Some general live loads defined in Section 5.1.10 Editorial. No action required. 2010.12.16
(Pullinger) 56 1-8 (such as the weight of fluid n pipes and vessels) Webinar
should be combined with the OBE loading if these Load combination tables define
are present during normal operation. MINIMAL load combinations. The
designer can add others depending
on his/her engineering judgment.
For future action:

Code edition.
294. CB&I 106 15-17 106 15-17 8.1.1.2: Too open ended. Editorial. No action required. 2010.12.16
Give a clear definition of what transient conditions Webinar
must be considered in the analysis for both loading This goes back to the fundamental
per 5.1.15 and 5.1.16, i.e. clearly define the issue of the performance-based code
minimum scope of analysis. Otherwise, due to vs. a prescriptive code. Details
ambiguity, required amount of work is subjective should be worked out by the
and may be endless. designer using sound engineering
judgment.
295. American Petroleum 106 20 106 20 8.1.1.3 Annual average ambient temperature is Editorial. No action required. 2010.12.16
Institute enough for the construction stage (it may be the Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task initial temperature profile). Because of the significant of
Group excessive ambient temperatures that
can occur in many places around the
World (e.g., Sakhalin, Qatar, etc.),
using average annual ambient
temperature is non conservative.
296. CB&I 107 4-6 107 4-6 8.1.1.4: Too open ended. Editorial. No action required. 2010.12.16
Give a clear definition of minimum requirements for Webinar
temp time-history and transient analysis. This goes back to the fundamental
Otherwise, required amount of work is subjective issue of the performance-based code
and may be endless. vs. a prescriptive code. Details
91 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
should be worked out by the
designer using sound engineering
judgment.
297. American Petroleum 107 5 107 5 “the entire temperature time history” should be Editorial. No action required. 2010.12.16
Institute described more specifically. Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task “Entire” = “complete” time history
Group experienced throughout the life of
the structure.
298. CB&I 107 7-10 107 7-10 R8.1.1.4: See the comment Error: Reference source
not found.
299. CB&I 107 11-14 107 11-14 8.1.1.5 & 8.1.1.6: Wind velocity for roof does not For future action. 2010.12.20
17-18 17-18 have the same limitations as wind velocity for wall. It Web Ballot
may lead to conditions when temperature increase Existing text:
due to solar for the wall is much higher than for the 8.1.1.5—Unless otherwise specified,
roof. the outside vertical tank surface of
Does it make sense? the secondary container shall be
Suggest in 8.1.1.5 instead of 5% lower velocity limit considered as a cylinder in cross flow
for solar radiation use a wind velocity averaged over subjected to a coincident wind speed
occurrence percentile either for the summer or that is exceeded at least 95% of the
annually and apply same wind velocity (with time based on recorded data for the
allowance for height adjustment) to both roof and area. In no case shall the coincident
wall. wind speed be taken greater than 13
ft/second.
300. American Petroleum 107 11, 107 11, 8.1.1.5, R8.1.1.5, 8.1.1.6 - All subsections within For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute 17, 17, 8.1.1 should specify which loading condition is Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task 19, 5 19, 5 applicable. E.G. Do this in 8.1.1.5, 8.1.1.6, 8.1.1.7
Group and 8.1.1.11 as is done already in 8.1.1.2, 8.1.1.3,
and 8.1.1.4. Otherwise the reader can think that 13
ft/sec is appropriate as a max wind load when we
think ACI 376 intends it for thermal analyses.
301. Cormire, Don A. 107 14 107 14 Paragraph 8.1.1.5 gives coincident wind speed no For future action. 2010.12.20
107 11 greater than 13ft/sec for the outside vertical tank Web Ballot
surface of the secondary container. This is a little
less than 9 miles/hour design loading. This seems
contrary to the wind loadings specified for the main
92 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
tank system given in 5.1.12 – Environmental loads
where the Wind loading (W) shall be determined in
accordance with ASCE 7. For reference, the API
standards use 120 mph winds to be able to
withstand hurricane force winds on the gulf coast, or
3-sec gust design wind speed from ASCE 7, or 3-sec
gust design wind speed specified by the Purchaser.
In my local region it would be purchaser specified as
90 mph. Why is the ACI-376 committee specifying
ASCE 7 wind loading for the primary tank system, yet
allowing only 9 mph wind design loading for the
secondary container? This seems non-conservative
to me. Especially in light of wind loading which must
needs impact the secondary (outside) walls of the
tank system before coming in contact with the inner
walls, if at all. It would seem that the secondary
containment walls would need to be designed to the
same stringent (high wind) speeds as the inner
primary container.
302. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 107 14, 15 107 14, 15 “13 ft/second”: Wind speed is defined in ASCE 7-05 Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Team & 18 & 18 in mph (mile per hour), or m/s (meters per second). Web Ballot
It is recommended using consistent units to avoid Committee to decide.
confusion and potential mistakes during conversion. Can use either 9mi/hr or 4m/sec.
303. American Petroleum 107- 19 107- 19 8.1.1.7 The type of requirement in this section, For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute 108 108 which is non-linear analysis of the concrete, should Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task be limited for only spill condition.
Group
304. American Petroleum 107 19-22 107 19-22 8.1.1.7 Repeat of lines 5 to 8 from Page 106. Withdrawn 2011.03.18
Institute Webinar
Group
305. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 107 19-22 107 19-22 Section 8.1.1.7 It is recommended including For future action. 2010.12.20
Team 108 1-8 direction to what loading conditions shall be Web Ballot
considered when calculating crack widths.
306. CB&I 107 & 19-22 107 19-22 8.1.1.7: This section is very unclear and difficult to For future action. 2010.12.20
93 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
108 & & & read. It should be completely re-written. Remove Web Ballot
1-8 108 1-8 pseudo-scientific wording and define clearly the
requirements.
a) Line 20, p. 107: ”: cracking & tension stiffening

are not material modifications – they are stiffness
modification.
Suggest replace “…material stress-strain
relationship…” with “…section stiffness…”
b) Lines 1-2, p. 108
a. Define required Code
b. What is “concrete constitutive model”? Is it EN
1992-1-1 concrete stress-strain relationship?
Which one? It allows two different ones… Or
crack width calc method?
c. How does this European Code crack width calc
method correlate with ACI350 Section 10.6.4??
Should ACI350 be followed?
d. How much credibility European Codes have
with US building officials?
c) Line 3, page 108: clearly define a purpose of
mandatory FEA?
- Is it to obtain internal forces?
- Or to determine crack width directly from a non-
linear FEA taking into account concrete/steel stress-
strain behavior?
The later one is impractical for the amount of load
combinations and design section requiring
investigation. The results will be software-
dependent and would not correlate to any codified
methods of crack width calcs.
c) Lines 7-8, p. 108: Define characteristic and mean
crack width in the definition section 2.2.1.
Consider re-writing this. It should be divided in two
sections.
94 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
i. The first one should address internal force
redistribution due to section stiffness
modification via cracking.
ii. The second one should address crack width
calculations method and requirements.
307. American Petroleum 108 1 108 1 8.1.1.7 “The reference to ‘European Code’ should Addressed in response to comment 2011.02.18
Institute be restated as ‘EN 1992-1-1’ The reference in section 250 Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task 3 of ACI 376 should also be to EN1992-1-1”.
Group
308. CB&I 108 1 108 1 The term “European Code” should not be used Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
change to EN1992-1 Web Ballot
Unless otherwise specified, the
concrete constitutive mode from
European Code EN1992-1-1 shall be
used for determining calculated
crack widths.
Also
3.1—Referenced standards and
reports
The standards listed below are cited
in the Code.
Existing reference.
European Standards
Those portions of EN 14620-3:2006
“Design and Manufacture of Site
Built, Vertical, Cylindrical, Flat-
Bottomed Steel Tanks for the Storage
of Refrigerated, Liquefied Gases with
Operation Temperatures between 0
oC and –165 oC—Part 3: Concrete
Components” dealing with the
protection of prestressing steel, the
notch sensitivity ratio of steels, and
95 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
the polymeric coating limits are
declared to be part of this Code as if
fully set forth herein.
Add this reference:

Those portions of EN 1992-1-1,
“Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
structures – Part 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings” determining
calculated crack widths for the
concrete constitutive mode.
309. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 108 1 108 1 “…European Code…”: It is recommended more Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Team specific reference to the relevant European code Web Ballot
section, such as “EN 1992-1-1: General rules, and Unless otherwise specified, the
rules for buildings”, or “EN 1992-3: Liquid retaining concrete constitutive mode from
and containing structures”. Also, It is recommended European Code EN1992-1-1 shall be
including the reference in Chapter 3 of this used for determining calculated
document. crack widths.
Also
reports
in the Code.
Existing reference.
European Standards
Those portions of EN 14620-3:2006
“Design and Manufacture of Site
Built, Vertical, Cylindrical, Flat-
Bottomed Steel Tanks for the Storage
of Refrigerated, Liquefied Gases with
Operation Temperatures between 0
oC and –165 oC—Part 3: Concrete
Components” dealing with the
96 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
protection of prestressing steel, the
notch sensitivity ratio of steels, and
the polymeric coating limits are
declared to be part of this Code as if
fully set forth herein.
Add this reference:

Those portions of EN 1992-1-1,
“Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
structures – Part 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings” determining
calculated crack widths for the
concrete constitutive mode.
310. American Petroleum 108 8 108 8 “8.1.1.8” is missing. Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Group
311. American Petroleum 108 9 108 9 R8.1.1.8 “The reference to ‘Eurocode 2’ should be Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Institute restated as ‘EN 1992-1-1” Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task R8.1.1.8—The Eurocode 2 EN 1992-
Group 1-1 is recommended for determining
calculated calculated crack widths. In
this case, the calculated crack widths
are characteristic and not mean
calculated crack widths.
312. American Petroleum 108 9 108 9 R8.1.1.8 “calculated calculated crack widths” is Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Institute typo? Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task See response 311
Group
313. CB&I 108 9 108 9 The term Eurocode 2 should not be used. Change to Disagree. 2010.12.20
EN1998-2 Web Ballot
EN1998-2 is Eurocode 8. Design of
structures for earthquake
resistance. Bridges
314. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 108 20 108 20 Editorial: Section 8.1.1.9 should be 8.1.1.8; Section Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
97 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
JH[same 8.1.1.10 should be 8.1.1.9; and Section 8.1.1.11 Web Ballot
] should be 8.1.1.10. See response 723
315. CB&I 108 20-23 108 20-23 8.1.1.9: Agree. Editorial. 2011.02.18
There are other ways to justify the design besides 3D Webinar
FEA. Why 3D FEA is mandatory? 8.1.1.9– 3-D analysis shall be used to
Suggest the following modifications to this clause: determine the effects of post
iii. Add at the end of the first sentence “…, unless tensioning sequence on the outer
justified by alternate methods.” tank local to and within the access
iv. Remove from the second sentence “… and opening unless justified by alternate
potential failure to attain the performance methods. Emphasis shall be placed
level of this standard.” on the stress state within the access
opening due to the absence of self-
weight in this area. and potential
failure to attain the performance
levels of this standard. The state of
stress determined by this analysis
shall comply with the minimum
performance requirements of
Chapter 6.
316. American Petroleum 109 5 109 1 8.1.1.10 The type of requirement in this section, For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute which is non-linear analysis of the concrete, should Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task be limited for only spill condition.
Group
317. CB&I 109 5-7 109 5-7 8.1.1.11: For future action. 2010.12.20
The requirements for transient temperature profile Web Ballot
shall be better defined, otherwise this is an open
ended list. Ambiguity should be taken out. Does
code require that crack widths (serviceability
requirements) be checked for transient conditions?
Crack widths are not typically checked for transient
and temporary conditions.
318. CB&I 109 13-19 109 13-19 Para R8.1.2.1 Delete whole section of R8.1.2.1 or For future action. 2010.12.20
replace the whole section with Web Ballot
“The determination of the material property values
shall be determined by the Foundation Engineer
98 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
based upon the soil investigation report.”
The term Foundation Engineer describes an
experienced competent Engineer who possesses a
specific mix of talents that encompass both
geotechnical and structural issues. NEHRP
recommended provisions for soil-structure
interaction includes the procedure for the
determination of soil/pile stiffness and are
acceptable worldwide. ASCE 7 referenced NEHRP in
their seismic criteria and soil-structure procedure.
319. American Petroleum 109 19 109 19 R8.1.2.1 Regarding the sensitivity analysis for soil For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute properties, the variation range is 50 % to 150％ in Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task ASCE-07. It should be consistent. It’s inclusion in this Section is not
Group clear.
320. CB&I 109 20-21 109 20-21 Para. 8.1.2.2 Replace to “The range of soil stiffness Disagree. 2010.12.20
shall be determined by the Foundation Engineer Web Ballot
based upon the variability of the soil provided as 8.1.2.2 is a Code requirement and
described in the geotechnical investigation.” This not Commentary.
section could be combined with Section R8.1.2.1.
321. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 110 Table 101 Table In the first column under seismic loads, add a row Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
under SSE and insert SSE aft. Web Ballot
Commenter must provide the Load
Factors to be included.
322. American Petroleum 110 1 110 1 8.1.2.3 “Non-linear soil properties and/or non-linear Disagree. Do not add "if necessary". 2011.02.18
Institute pile stiffness” isn’t always required for static and Current text is appropriately worded. Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task dynamic analysis. Add “if necessary” or “in case
Group linear analysis result is not within acceptable
criteria”.
323. CB&I 110 4 110 4 Pare 8.1.2.4 change to “Foundation Engineer.” This For future action. 2010.12.20
can be deleted, it is the same as Section 8.1.2.2 Web Ballot
recommended above
324. CB&I 110 10 110 10 8.1.3.1.1: Delete “foundation system” from this line For future action. 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
325. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 110 10 110 10 8.1.3.1.1 “The seismic analyses of the RLG tank For future action. 2010.12.20
Team foundation system shall be performed for the OBE, Web Ballot
99 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
SSE, and SSEaft events. The effect of tank wall
flexibility shall be considered in these analyses.”
Comment: Detailed analysis has shown that
considering foundation flexibility is also important
and can affect analysis results especially in the
vertical and rocking modes. Assuming the
foundation to be rigid may be unconservative in
some cases.
326. American Petroleum 110 11 110 11 8.1.3.1.1 “SSEaft” should be read as “SSEaft plus For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute spill”. Web Ballot
Group
327. Blanchard, J. for NFPA 110 13 110 13 8.1.3.1.2 This paragraph leaves all up to the For future action. 2010.12.20
59A Task Group Engineer. Web Ballot
R8.1.3.1.2 Limitations are placed in the commentary No action required for 8.1.3.1.2.
section. That is the intent of the Code
There should be more limitations on how OBE and provision.
SSE performance criteria is achieved.
Linear analysis R values and non-linear analysis For future action.
requirements should be included as provisions and Regarding R8.1.3.1.2, the
the criteria should be consistent with the specified Commentary does not provide
damping level and load factors. limitations but only suggests things
the designer should consider. The
inclusion of the remainder of the
comments will be considered for
future action.
328. Krstulovic, Neven 110 13 110 13 8.1.3.1.2 The use of R factors in design of RLG tanks NK #24 (Gap analysis #1) 2010.11.05
is should not be permitted by this Code. Nonlinear Web Ballot
analysis should use best estimates of loads and
material properties. Change text as follows:
8.1.3.1.2 - Selected methods shall be approved by

the Engineer. If the design of an RLG tank is based
on linear analysis, the response modification factor
(R) shall be taken as 1.0, that is, no reduction in
100 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
seismic forces are permitted.
Results of nonlinear dynamic or nonlinear static

(pushover) analyses may be used provided the peak
strains in concrete and steel do not exceed the
limiting values prescribed in this Code. Nonlinear
analysis shall be carried out with true best estimates
of demand (load) and strength without any load
reduction or material safety factors. All responses
(for example, plastic yielding, base uplifting, base
sliding) should shall be explicitly calculated in the
nonlinear analysis.
329. Ballard, Thomas A. 110 13-18 110 13-18 The use of R factors in design of RLG tanks should To ballot – see 328 response 2010.11.05
not be permitted by this Code. Nonlinear analysis Web Ballot
should use best estimates of loads and material
properties. (8.1.3.1.2 and R8.1.3.1.2)
330. Krstulovic, Neven 110 14 110 14 R8.1.3.1.2 Change text as follows: NK #25 (Gap analysis #2) 2010.11.05
Web Ballot
R8.1.3.1.2 - Both Linear and nonlinear analysis can
be used to determine the seismic forces. In general,
the design of a RLG tank should be based on a linear
analysis with a force reduction factor R = 1.
Historically, linear analysis is used in the case of low
seismic regions and/or OBE case, while nonlinear
analysis is used in regions with higher seismicity
and/or SSE case.
Results of nonlinear dynamic or nonlinear static

(pushover) analyses may be used provided the peak
strains in concrete and steel do not exceed the
limiting values prescribed in this Code. Nonlinear
analysis should be carried out with true estimates of
demand (load) and strength without any load
reduction or material safety factors. All responses
(for example, plastic yielding, base uplifting, base
101 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
sliding) should be explicitly calculated in the
nonlinear analysis
331. CB&I 110 15-16 110 15-16 Para R8.1.3.1.2 delete sentence “In general, the … To ballot – see 330 response 2010.11.05
R=1.” This is a general comment that may cause Web Ballot
confusion.
332. CB&I 111 3-4 111 3-4 Delete “Guidance for selecting…1995.” There are Disagree. 2010.12.20
several methods of modeling and the method Web Ballot
should be left up to the competent Engineer. This is in the Commentary section to
provide guidance. Other methods of
modeling can be suggested by the
commenter for future action.
333. American Petroleum 111 5 111 5 8.1.3.1.3 “Consider suggestion that limitations in For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute reductions of response should be terms of damping Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task (20%) for SSE & SSE aft, and 15% for OBE. See responses 334 and 335
Group
334. CB&I 111 5 111 5 8.1.3.1.3 Reduction of responses due to soil For future action. 2010.12.20
structure interaction. The limits placed should be Web Ballot
based on the damping due to SSI. A change in See responses 333 and 335.
period should not be part of the reduction limit.
335. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 111 5 111 5 8.1.3.1.3 “The reduction of responses due to soil- For future action. 2010.12.20
Team structure interaction (SSI) effects shall be permitted, Web Ballot
but limited to a maximum reduction of 50% for SSE See responses 333 and 334.
analysis and 40% for SSEaft and OBE analyses.”
Comment: This implies that a fixed base analysis will
be required to compare with the SSI effects. Is this
the case? Why limit SSI reductions if a detailed
analysis is performed that is approved by the owner.
Additionally what do those limits apply to?
Accelerations, displacements, response spectra,
forces?
336. Krstulovic, Neven 111 5 111 5 8.1.3.1.3 Soil structure interaction effects should NK #26 (Gap analysis #3) 2010.11.05
always be considered in the design of RLG tanks. Response to 337 Web Ballot
With the provision to vary soil properties by +100%
and -50%, the variation of response due to SSI (see
8.1.2.1) is adequately considered in the response
102 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
calculations. SSI could and should reduce high
frequency response significantly and will most likely
amplify low frequency response, therefore, placing a
maximum limit on the response reduction is not
rational.
Change text as follows:

8.1.3.1.3 – The reduction of responses due to soil-
structure interaction (SSI) effects shall be permitted,
but limited to a maximum reduction of 50% for SSE
analysis and 40% for SSEaft and OBE analyses.
337. Ballard, Thomas A. 111 5-7 111 5-7 Soil structure interaction effects should always be To ballot – see 336 response 2010.11.05
considered in the design of RLG tanks. With the Web Ballot
provision to vary soil properties by +100% and -50%,
the variation of response due to soil properties (see
8.1.2.1) is adequately considered in the response
calculations. SSI could and should reduce high
frequency response and will most likely amplify low
frequency response, therefore, placing a maximum
limit on the response reduction is not rational.
(8.1.3.1.3)
338. Ballard, Thomas A. 111 10-16 111 10-16 The last sentence of the commentary, “The time To ballot – see 340 response 2010.11.05
histories should meet the amplitude, frequency, and Web Ballot
duration requirements for the site for OBE, SSE and
SSEaft events”, should be on the Code side. (8.1.3.2.1
and R8.1.3.2.1)
339. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 111 10 111 10 8.1.3.2.1 “The response spectrum or time history To ballot – see 340 response 2010.11.05
Team analysis method shall be used for calculating the Web Ballot
seismic responses of the tank-fluid-foundation
system.” Comment 1: Response spectrum method
should not be used for complicated SSI analysis (for
example for pile foundations). If used at all the
results from response spectrum method should be
calibrated with time history analysis. Comment 2:
This section does not state that when performing SSI
103 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
analysis both inertial and kinematic SSI effects can
be considered.
340. Krstulovic, Neven 111 10 111 10 8.1.3.2.1 The last sentence of the commentary NK #27 (Gap analysis #4) 2010.11.05
should be on the Code side. Web Ballot
Response to 338 and 339
Change text as follows:
8.1.3.2.1 – The response spectrum or time history
analysis method shall be used for calculating the
seismic responses of the tank-fluid-foundation
system. The time histories shall meet the amplitude,
frequency, and duration requirements for the site
for OBE, SSE and SSEaft events.
341. Krstulovic, Neven 111 12 111 12 R8.1.3.2.1 Change text as follows: NK #28 (Gap analysis #--) 2010.11.05
Web Ballot
R8.1.3.2.1 – The modal superposition method is
used for response spectrum analysis. For time
history analysis, the modal superposition or direct
integration method can be used for calculating the
seismic responses (MCEER 2001; Malhotra 1995 and
Veletsos 1998). The time histories should meet the
amplitude, frequency, and duration requirements for
the site for OBE, SSE and SSEaft events.
342. American Petroleum 111 17 111 17 8.1.3.2.2 API620 and API650 do not require the For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute response spectra or time histories for the vertical Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task ground motion. Vertical response could be
Group calculated by simply factored horizontal seismic
coefficient.
343. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 112 Table 103 Table In the first column under seismic loads, add a row Agree. Editorial. 2011.02.18
under SSE and insert SSE aft. Webinar
344. Ballard, Thomas A. 112 1 112 1 Section 8.1and 8.2 should include provisions for For future action. 2010.12.20
seismic isolation, time history selection, time history Web Ballot
analysis and ground motion selection when Agree.
performing time history analysis.
345. Ballard, Thomas A. 112 4-12 112 4-12 This commentary restricts the seismic analysis to See Response 346 2010.11.05
stick models. 3-D finite element models with Web Ballot
104 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
potential based fluid modeling should also be
permitted. Details and demands on details can
often be better characterized using 3-D modeling,
for example, tie-down straps, uplift and impact of
the tank edges, distribution of ring wall and
insulation stresses, etc. (R8.1.3.3.1)
346. Krstulovic, Neven 112 4 112 4 R8.1.3.3.1 This commentary restricts the seismic NK #29 (Gap analysis #--) 2010.11.05
analysis to stick models. 3-D finite element models Web Ballot
with potential based fluid modeling should also be
permitted. Details and demands on details can
often be better characterized using 3-D modeling,
for example, tie-down straps, uplift and impact of
the tank edges, distribution of ring wall and
insulation stresses, etc. Change text as follows:
R8.1.3.3.1 – Where stick models are used as the

basis for seismic analysis, The member axial,
bending and shear stiffness……
347. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 112 15 113 4 R8.1.3.3.2 “….For a complex dynamic soil-pile-tank For future action. 2010.12.20
Team foundation interaction problem, the seismic Web Ballot
response may be determined based on the finite
element seismic analysis method (U.S. NRC 1973).”
Comment: The NRC reference provided: U.S. NRC,
1973, “Regulatory Guide 1.61—Damping Values for
Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants,” U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 12
pp. This reference does not seem to be the correct
reference as implied in the text.
348. CB&I 112 16 112 16 Para R8.1.3.3.2 Recommend replacing “MCEER 2001 For future action. 2010.12.20
and ASCE/SEI 7-05” with “NEHRP Recommended Web Ballot
Provisions”. See comment 318. See response 318
349. CB&I 112 17 112 17 Delete the last sentence. Foundation Engineer as Disagree. 2010.12.20
described in comment Error: Reference source not Web Ballot
found has the capability of determining the Requires a specialty that many
foundation impedances based upon the data from engineers do not possess.
105 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
the soil investigation report.
350. CB&I 113 3-6 113 3-6 Delete the sentences from “A simple and practical Disagree. 2010.12.20
approach … method (U.S. NRC 1973).” There are Web Ballot
several methods available and we leave this to the This is in the Commentary section to
Foundation Engineer. provide guidance. Other methods
for calculating the effective
vibration period and system
damping for SSI can be suggested by
the commenter for future action.
351. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 113 13 105 16 The second and third paragraphs are in the wrong For future action. 2010.12.20
section of the commentary remove and renumber as Web Ballot
follows: second paragraph should be R8.1.1.2; the
current R8.1.1.2 should become the second
paragraph. The third paragraph should be R8.1.1.6
(see below).
352. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 113 19 105 22 Roll-over is not a viable case since for those products R8.1.1 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence 2011.03.18
where it is a potential condition the tanks are Webinar
instrumented and piped to control roll-over. Suggest Proposed rewording: “…resulting
rewording: “…resulting from vapor generation from vapor generation during roll-
during roll-over and spill events should be taken into over and spill events should be taken
account.” into account.”
353. American Petroleum 113 23 113 23 R8.1.3.4.2 Table 8.1 is correct, not table 7.1. Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Refrigerated Tank Task R8.1.3.4.2—Structural damping is
Group related to the type of tank material.
Because the impulsive liquid moves
with the structure, impulsive
damping is a type of structural
damping.
The structural damping values in

Table 7.1 8.1 were obtained from ACI
209.
354. CB&I 113 23 113 23 R8.1.3.4.2: a) Wrong reference. ACI209 is guide on Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
creep and shrinkage. If the intent was to refer to ACI Web Ballot
106 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
SP-209 – correct the reference and identify which R8.1.3.4.2—Structural damping is
page (pages) define damping related to the type of tank material.
b) Correct typo. Ref table shall be 8.1 Because the impulsive liquid moves
with the structure, impulsive
damping is a type of structural
damping.
The structural damping values in

Table 7.1 8.1 were obtained from ACI
SP 209, ACI Fifh International
Conference: Innovations in Design
with Emphasis on Seismic, Wind
and Environmental Loading, and
Quality Concrete (2002)
The actual pages in this publication

were not available for identifying the
location of values.
355. CB&I 114 1 114 1 8.1.3.4.3: Typo in reference. Should be Table 8.1. Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
8.1.3.4.3—Structural damping values
provided in Table 7.1 8.1 shall be
used unless higher values can be
justified through tests or reference.
356. American Petroleum 114 4 114 4 Table 8.1 Structural dampings shown in this table For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute are different from value in API620 App. L, which is Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task 5% for impulsive mode.
Group
357. CB&I 114 6 114 6 8.1.3.4.4: Provide damping values for impulsive For future action. 2010.12.20
liquid or provide appropriate reference. Web Ballot
358. American Petroleum 114 12 114 12 8.1.3.4.5 The foundation damping is limited within For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute 10% for OBE and 20% for SSE in API620. They should Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task be consistent.
Group
359. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 114 12 114 12 8.1.3.4.5 “The foundation damping for any vibration For future action. 2010.12.20
107 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Team mode shall not exceed 25% of critical.” Comment: Web Ballot
The damping limit should only apply to analysis
techniques using modal or composite damping, If a
detailed SSI analysis is performed using frequency
domain approach As presented in your reference
Lysmer et al (1981) a damping limit should not be
imposed. Note that updated NRC guidelines do not
impose such arbitrary limits for analysis of nuclear
plants.
360. Jacobs, Wesley 114 12-20 114 12-20 The provisions in 8.1.3.4.5 and 8.1.3.4.6 do not, at For future action. 2010.12.20
least specifically, address the case of a seismically Web Ballot
isolated tank, that is, a tank supported on seismic
isolator bearings. Several tanks have recently been
constructed (by CBI) using the FPS system bearings,
namely the LNG storage tanks constructed in Peru
and Chile. I have copied below several comments
and suggestions for specification or ACI standard
provisions from a report that I prepared in 2007.
Damping:
For seismically isolated tanks (base isolated
foundation) utilizing friction pendulum type
bearings, total system damping shall not exceed;
OBE - 25%, SSE - 20% (Total system damping
includes material structural damping and SSI
damping. The maximum system damping is in
addition to the effective damping due to the longer
structural period due to lateral deflection of the
isolator bearings.)
Explanation:
This damping limitation requirement specified in
8.1.3.4.6 is applicable to tanks on flexible
foundations, eg., Soil Structure Interaction damping,
but not to tanks supported on seismic isolator
108 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
bearings. For seismically isolated tank
structures/foundations, the damping is inversely
proportional to lateral displacement. Since the
greatest displacement will occur during a postulated
SSE event, SSE damping will be less than OBE
damping. Note that there are two friction pendulum
bearing suppliers, so we can use a lower case
description.
361. American Petroleum 114 14 114 19 8.1.3.4.6 The foundation damping is limited within For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute 10% for OBE and 20% for SSE in API620. They should Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task be consistent.
Group
362. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 114 19 114 19 Section 8.1.3.4.6 The system damping for any For future action. 2010.12.20
Team vibration modes shall not exceed 15% for OBE and Web Ballot
SSEaft, and 20% for SSE. Comment: Same as above See response 362
comment
363. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 115 5 107 11 This section should be relocated after all paragraphs Disagree. 2010.12.20
dealing with the thermal analysis. Current 8.1.1.5 Web Ballot
should be 8.1.1.4; current 8.1.1.6 should be 8.1.1.5; Don’t understand the rationale for
current 8.1.1.4 should be 8.1.1.6; and current this change.
R8.1.1.4 should be R8.1.1.5.
364. American Petroleum 115 9 115 9 8.1.3.4.8 The “(1-0.3-0.3) is not consistent with For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute other published standards such as ASCE7 and API Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task 650/620.
Group
365. CB&I 115 13-14 115 13-14 8.1.3.4.10: Why acceleration at the top of the wall Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
but not the appropriate roof acceleration. Suggest Web Ballot
the following wording: “For design of suspended 8.1.3.4.10—For design of suspended
deck, steel roof and other equipment supported at deck, steel roof, and other
the roof the maximum seismic acceleration response equipment supported at the roof,
of the roof at the appropriate radiuses shall be the maximum seismic acceleration
required” response of the roof at the
appropriate radiuses shall be
required. responses at the top of the
wall shall be required.
109 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
366. CB&I 115 16 115 16 8.2 or 8.3: The code does not address a primary tank For future action. 2010.12.20
slab. Web Ballot
It addresses only the foundation design which
implies a secondary containment slab or a pile cap.
Any special design requirements for the primary
tank concrete slab?
367. Matrix Service 115 22 107 17?? Is it the intent if the committee to have the For future action. 2010.12.20
(Pullinger) coincident wind speed requirements be the same for Web Ballot
the cylinder and the roof? Currently the roof
specifies the speed differently than the cylinder. If
they are to be different then it is recommended that
the basis be given in the commentary, other wise
consider combining 8.1.1.5 and 8.1.1.6.
368. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 116 5 108 1 Editorial: “constitutive mode model.” Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
JH[same Web Ballot
] See response 723.
369. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 116 5 108 9 Editorial: “calculated calculated crack widths.” Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
JH[same Web Ballot
] See response 311.
370. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 116 7 JH[108] 3 Editorial: Line 7-12 should be the first paragraph of For future action. 2010.12.20
R8.1.1.7: the second paragraph should consist of Web Ballot
lines 5,6 & 15. Lines 16-23 should form the second Actual lines are 3-8 0n page 108.
and third paragraphs or R8.1.1.7 These are a Code requirement and
can’t be moved to the Commentary
side.
371. CB&I 116 20-21 116 20-21 8.1.1.3 & R81.1.3: Clearly define the temperature For future action. 2010.12.20
107 1-3 107 1-3 requirements for minimum and maximum Web Ballot
temperature requirements. R8.1.1.3 says 95% and
5% percentile temperatures. Percentile of what???
i) absolute min/max?
j) average seasonal min/max, i.e.
3months min/max?
k) 10 days min/max?
l) 5 days min/max?
372. CB&I 117 2 117 2 8.3: General: For future action. 2010.12.20
110 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Section R8.3 correctly distinguishes structural Web Ballot
foundation slabs and slabs contacting with cold
liquid.
Requirements, similar to the wall requirements
outlined in Section 8.4.9, should be added to Section
8.3 to specifically address foundation slab contacting
cold liquid.
373. CB&I 117 14-19 117 14-19 Para 8.3.3.1: This does not match the requirement in For future action. 2010.12.20
Table 9.1 (page 143). Suggest removing this section Web Ballot
and relying only on Table 9.1 for reinforcement
ratios.
374. American Petroleum 117 20 117 20 8.3.3.2 if pile will be applied, about 100mm pile top For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute will be penetrated to slab. So, 5 in. seems to be Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task small. 6 in would be suitable.
Group
375. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 117 23 117 23 “No. 4” seems to be redundant. Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Team Web Ballot
8.3.3.3—The maximum bar spacing
shall not exceed 12 in. and the
minimum bar size
shall be #4 No. 4.
376. CB&I 118 5-7 118 5-7 Para R8.3.5 Replace the whole section to “The Disagree. 2010.12.20
anchorage to concrete shall be designed per Web Ballot
Appendix D of ACI 318. The proposed change is a Code
requirement and does not belong in
the Commentary.
377. CB&I 118 8-11 118 8-11 Para 8.3.6 and Para R8.3.6 delete the sections. For future action. 2010.12.20
Anchorage design is covered. Ductility and brittle Web Ballot
failures are already addressed in Appendix D of ACI
318 Code.
378. CB&I 118 15 118 15 8.3.8: Remove “When a monolithic wall to For future action. 2010.12.20
foundation joint is incorporated in the design” Web Ballot
The presence of the wall will affect the slab analysis
for differential settlements included edge differential
around circumference even for the sliding or pinned
111 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
joints. The effects will be smaller than for the
monolithic joints but it may have an impact on the
design w/ other joint besides monolithic …
379. Matrix Service 119 3 Recommend stating that the composite structure For future action. 2010.12.20
(Pullinger) shall be analyzed for all seismic loadings with the Web Ballot
primary container both full and empty.
380. Widianto 119 7-9 110 14-16 Please consider moving the following statement to For future action. 2010.12.20
the main body: “The design of a RLG tank should be Web Ballot
based on a linear analysis with a force reduction The suggestion is to make a
factor R = 1”. Commentary suggestion into a Code
requirement.
381. Matrix Service 119 20 Recommend committee add a definition of the basis For future action. 2010.12.20
(Pullinger) for which the reduction is to be compared against Web Ballot
(i.e. elastic fixed base analysis. Commentary should
also provide the basis for the limits on the
reduction.
382. CB&I 119 12, 13 119 12, 13 8.4.4: Semantics: Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Suggest in Line 12: “Service Loads alone” change to Web Ballot
“Normal Loads alone” 8.4.4—The prestressed concrete wall
Suggest in Line 13: “Service Loads” change to shall be analyzed for three basic load
“Normal Loads” groups:
a) Tensioning, or prestress at
transfer;
b) Service Normal loads alone;
c) Service Normal loads with all
other applicable loads prescribed in
Chapter 5 of this Code.
383. Matrix Service 120 13 111 18 Recommended that the committee provide For future action. 2010.12.20
(Pullinger) guidance on obtaining the time histories as that Web Ballot
would match the design spectra. Also the minimum
number of time histories to be evaluated.
384. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 120 15 111 19 Section 10.7.5 does not define how the ground Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
motions are determined. Web Ballot
R8.1.3.2.2—Section 10.7.5 R5.1.13
of this Code describes how and
112 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
where these ground motions are to
be determined. When the tank is
located in a high seismic region, and
is susceptible to partial uplifting at
the base, the seismic analysis may
include the nonlinear effects due to
base uplifting (Housner 1982).
385. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 121 5 112 8 Recommend that stick models be deleted since it is Agree. Editorial. 2011.02.18
a finite element model and is therefore unnecessary Webinar
suggested rewording: “…to construct the detailed R8.1.3.3.1—The member axial,
finite element or stick models of the tank-fluid- bending and shear stiffnesses are
foundation system.” used to construct the detailed finite
element or stick models of the tank-
fluid-foundation system. The steel
roof and suspended deck, where
applicable, should be modeled with
the outer tank to account for the
dynamic amplification of the
accelerations
386. American Petroleum 121 8 121 8 8.4.10 This section is not necessary. Vertical pre- Disagree. 2010.12.20
Institute stress is provided to prevent deformation of wall-to- Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task slab due to horizontal pre-stress. This section deals with wall
Group buttresses.
387. American Petroleum 121 12 121 12 8.4 Revise to “If an impact load is specified….” Disagree. 2010.12.20
Institute Impact load is not automatic or mandatory. Revise Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task 4.1.4 to 5.1.4 Disagree with the first comment.
Group Impact is an unplanned event that is
not “specified”.
Agree to the second comment.

Editorial.
8.4.12—As a result of the impact

load defined in Section 4.1.14 5.1.14,
the wall thickness shall be 20%
113 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
greater than the perforation
thickness.
388. CB&I 121 12 121 12 8.4.12: change “4.1.14” to “5.1.14”. Agree; line 12 should read "… of 2010.10.24
Section 4.1.14 5.1.14 …" Pittsburgh
See item 14 in April 1, 2009 email to
ACI.
389. CB&I 123 8-9 123 8-9 8.4.15: Editorial: Pressure load applied to the wall 2011.03.18
below the TCP embedment shall always be included Webinar
regardless of a spill level. See Response 416
Suggest the following re-wording:
“Pressure load applied to the wall below the TCP
embedment due to spilled liquid and, if applicable,
internal pressure shall be included in the design of
the wall for spill.”
390. Matrix Service 123 12 Recommend that the vertical mode of vibration For future action. 2010.12.20
(Pullinger) (breathing) also be discussed in the section. Web Ballot
391. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 123 15 114 10 Recommended revision: “The convective (sloshing) Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
mode that exhibits a very long period of vibration is Web Ballot
considered as decoupled mode from the finite R8.1.3.4.4—Convective (fluid)
element tank-foundation model impulsive mode. damping is associated with sloshing
response of the liquid.
Only the impulsive mode is included
in the evaluation of the system
damping for a tank-fluid foundation
system. The convective (sloshing)
mode that exhibits a very long
period of vibration is considered as
decoupled mode from the finite
element tank-foundation impulsive
mode. model.
392. CB&I 124 12 124 12 8.5.2.b): Change wording: “missile” to “projectile” Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
8.5.2—The minimum thickness of
the dome roof shall be that required
114 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
to provide:
(a) Adequate buckling resistance for
applied dead, live and construction
loads. If the roof is poured in layers,
the loading due to the placed
concrete shall be defined as a live
load when considering buckling
resistance;
(b) Adequate perforation thickness
due to missile projectile impact; and
(c) Sufficient thickness to provide
thermal resistance to incident heat
flux due to fire load combinations.
393. CB&I 124 16 124 16 R8.5.2: What section of ACI318 addresses dome Agree, but ACI policies on 2010.12.20
buckling? Could not find anything in ACI318 except a references removed at least 80% of Web Ballot
few references to papers and IASS the references that were included in
recommendations. Same references are in ACI350. the To-Tac version. Under those
Why is it necessary to refer to ACI318? Just refer to policies, it would not be prudent to
the actual papers containing the calc method… change what currently exists in this
version.
394. Matrix Service 124 16 115 7 All modes, not just the impulsive and convective Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
(Pullinger) modes need to be considered. Recommended Web Ballot
revision: “The impulsive, and convective and all 8.1.3.4.8—The impulsive, and
other significant modal responses shall be combined convective and all other significant
by the SRSS (square root sum of the squares) modal responses shall be combined
method. The total horizontal and vertical loads by the SRSS (square root of sum of
responses shall be combined by the (1-0.3-0.3) rule squares) method. The total
for the 3 orthogonal directions.” horizontal and vertical loads
responses shall be combined by the
(1-0.3-0.3) rule for the 3 orthogonal
directions.
395. American Petroleum 125 11 125 11 8.5.4 In case that not consider composite member, For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute is there any limit of distance between studs? Web Ballot
Group
115 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
396. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 125 16 116 2 The commentary is discussing types of loads and Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
therefore to be consistent with the nomenclature in Web Ballot
Chapter 5 revise to the following: “..both during R8.2.1.1—The objective of the
service conditions normal and abnormal load container design is to ensure that the
conditions. container meets all the performance
criteria prescribed in Chapter 6 of
this Code, both during service
conditions normal and abnormal
load conditions.
397. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 125 19 116 5 The design of the container is not based on the Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
behavior at service conditions but the requirements Web Ballot
of Chapter 6. Suggested revision: “Design of 8.2.1.2—Design of prestressed
prestressed concrete containers shall be based on concrete containers shall be based
both strength requirements and on behavior at on strength and on behavior at
service conditions serviceability requirements at all service conditions serviceability
load stages that will be critical during throughout requirements at all load stages that
construction and the life of the structure. from the will be critical during throughout
time prestressing is first applied .” construction and the life of the
structure. from the time prestressing
is first applied.
398. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 125 19 116 7 To be consistent with the proposed rewording of Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
8.2.1.2, suggested revision: “While the design is Web Ballot
primarily based on the strength method, a number R8.2.1.2—While the design is
of loading conditions and serviceability performance primarily based on the strength
criteria (particularly those associated with extreme design method, a number of loading
event abnormal loading loads) lend themselves to conditions and serviceability
the allowable stress design method are also required performance criteria (particularly
to comply with serviceability limits.” those associated with extreme event
abnormal loads loading) lend
themselves to the allowable stress
design method are also required to
comply with serviceability.
399. CB&I 126 17 126 17 Reference should be made to ACI 350 Chapter 7 Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
“Details of Reinforcement”, not ACI 350 Ch 9. Web Ballot
9.2.1—General
116 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Unless otherwise specified in this
Code, reinforcement details shall
comply with the provisions of ACI
350, Chapter 9 7.
400. CB&I 127 11 127 11 R9.2.2.1: Should line refer to table 9.1, not 8.1? 2010.12.20
R9.2.2.1—For additional guidelines Web Ballot
regarding shrinkage and temperature
reinforcement, refer to the
provisions of ACI 350 and ACI
350.2R, Chapter 7. The amounts of
shrinkage and temperature
reinforcement specified in ACI 350
for deformed bars and welded wire
fabric are empirical, but have been
used satisfactorily for many years.
Splices and end anchorages of
shrinkage and temperature
reinforcement should be designed
for the full specified yield strength in
accordance with ACI 350.
The minimum reinforcement ratios

shown in Table 8.1 9.1 were
compiled from the applicable
provisions of ACI 350, 318, 372R, and
373R.
401. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 127 16 143 1 The minimum steel required for a slab in contact Agree. Revise Table 9.1 2011.03.18
with RLG is 0.006 and is based on ACI 373R. This is Webinar
inconsistent with Table9.1 of this code which only
requires 0.005. Suggest changing the Table to be
consistent with Section 8.3.3.1.
402. Matrix Service 128 1 117 20 .” If the slab is reinforced in both directions with Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
(Pullinger) larger bars than # 6 bars the requirement may not Web Ballot
be able to be met for both layers. Suggest changing 8.3.3.2—The upper mat layer of
the wording as follows: “The upper mat layer of reinforcement shall be located in the
117 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
reinforcement shall be located in the top 3.0 in. of top 3.5 3.0 in. of the slab. The lower
the slab. mat of reinforcement shall be
located in the bottom 5 in. of the
slab.
403. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 128 5 117 23 Editorial: delete No.4 since it is redundant. Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
JH[same Web Ballot
] See response 375
404. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 128 10 118 3 To insure that the inner tank can if required develop Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
an inelastic response as discussed in R8.3.5 it is Web Ballot
suggested that the pull out capacity of the anchor be 8.3.5—When seismic loads dictate
designed for the yield strength of the anchor. that anchors are required to resist
Suggest the following rewording: “When seismic the inner tank seismic overturning
loads dictate that anchors are required to resist the loads, the slab or pile cap shall be
inner tank seismic overturning loads, the pull out designed to resist the pull-out yield
strength of the slab or pile cap shall be designed to strength of the anchors loads.
resist the yield strength of the anchors loads.”
405. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 130 4 119 10 What is the purpose of this section? If it is to define For future action. 2010.12.20
the load combinations, suggest rewording as Web Ballot
follows: “8.4.4 The prestressed concrete wall shall
be analyzed for the loads and load combinations
defined in Chapter 5.”
406. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 130 10 119 15 Editorial: Delete “Criteria” and replace with Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
JH[same “Requirements” that is the actual title for the Web Ballot
] chapter. 8.4.5—The wall design shall comply
with both the service and the
strength requirements of the
Minimum Performance Criteria
Requirements defined in Chapter 6
of this Code and as required in 8.4.6
through 8.4.17.
407. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 130 15 119 18 Consideration was to evaluate having the capacity to Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
place more strands within a duct by having fewer Web Ballot
strands in the anchor than the anchor has capacity. R8.4.6—Consideration should be
Suggest revising the wording: “Consideration should given to including space within the
118 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
be given to including space within the selected selected anchorage so that
anchorage so that additional strands could be additional strands could be installed
installed to compensate for the loss of prestressing to compensate for the loss including
force should a duct become blocked.” additional strand strength within the
anchorage selection to enable
introduction of prestressing force
should an adjacent a duct become
blocked.
408. Krstulovic, Neven 131 9 131 9 9.4.1.2 To point out that 1" of non prestressed Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
shotcrete cover over the outer layer of wires might Web Ballot
not be always sufficient given the corrosive 9.4.1.2—Each layer of wire or strand
environment these structures could be subjected to, shall be coated with shotcrete to
add following text to Commentary: provide a clear cover over the wire
or strand of at least 1/4 in., but no
“However, for added durability, cover greater than 1 less than the diameter of the wire or
in. might be considered.” strand. After all the wires or strands
have been placed and coated, a final
coating of shotcrete shall be applied
to provide a minimum thickness of 1
in. over the last layer wire or strand.
However, for added durability, cover
greater than 1 in. can be
considered.
409. Kuebitz, Karl 131 18 131 18 Delete the sentence beginning with “Moreover…” Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
and add the sentence, “However, additional cover Web Ballot
may be specified.” The deleted sentence does not
contribute to the Code.
R9.4.1.2—The requirement for a

minimum 1 in. cover over the last
wire or strand is in accordance with
ACI 350 (Section G.4.2.4), as well as
the other principal standards
governing the design and
construction of wire- and strand-
119 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
wrapped tanks (ACI 372R and AWWA
D1106 2004). Moreover, this
requirement was used in the design
of existing wire-wrapped prestressed
concrete LNG storage tanks, and is
standard practice for the design and
construction of thousands of wire-
and strand-wrapped water storage
tanks. However, additional cover
may be specified.
410. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 132 3 121 1 The distribution of the circumferential tendons is Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
non-uniform not nonlinear. Suggest revising to read Web Ballot
“ Non-uniform distribution of circumferential R8.4.9—Vertical bending moments
tendons.” may be a result of the following
factors:
a) Internal and external loads in
combination with base and top of
wall restraints that exist during the
combination of various loadings;
b) Nonlinear Non-uniform
distribution of circumferential
prestressing;
c) Temperature differences and
gradients due to normal operation;
d) Transient and steady state thermal
gradients due to spill and fire loading
conditions;
e) Banding of prestressing resulting
from reduced tendon spacing above
and below the wall
penetrations below the corner
protection;
f) Attached structures; and
g) Differential settlements. and
h) Seismic loads (OBE, SSE, SSE af)
120 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
411. Matrix Service 132 9 121 6 Seismic loads also develop vertical bending Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
(Pullinger) moments in the wall add point “h.) Seismic loads Web Ballot
(OBE, SSE, SSE aft). Remove “;and” from f.) See response 410.
412. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 133 8 122 3 The variable, “d” in the formula is not defined in Agree. Editorial 2011.02.18
Chapter 2, but the variable “D” is defined as the Webinar
diameter of the Projectile Diameter. Change formula Change in Chapter 2
to be consistent. 2.1—Notation
The terms in this list are used in the
Code and as needed in the
Commentary.
D Dp = projectile diameter, Chapter 7

8
Change in R8.4.12
The following empirical equation
may be used to evaluate the
penetration resistance of concrete to
a hard projectile.
v2 = C . fc′ . w1/3 . { Dp h2 / mp}4/3
where
C = 4.22 x 10-13
Dp = projectile diameter
413. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 134 2 122 18 Editorial: “critical piping and or equipment.” Corrected in 4-20 download 2010.10.24
JH[same Pittsburgh
]
414. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 134 14 123 5 Editorial: should be Section 6.3.4.
JH[same
]
415. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 134 19 134 19 “a durable permanent cover”: It is recommended For future action. 2010.12.20
Team providing definition and some commentary for what Web Ballot
is considered a durable permanent cover.
416. Matrix Service 134 19 123 8 Does below the liner means below the embedment Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
121 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
(Pullinger) for the TCP? Suggest wording be changed as follows: Web Ballot
“8.4.15 – Pressure loads applied to the wall along 8.4.15—Pressure loads applied to
the thermal corner protection (TCP) liner shall be the wall along the thermal corner
included in the design of the wall for both the protection (TCP) below the liner
maximum spill depth and for any intermediate spill shall be included in the design of the
depth. The pressure may be reduced by the portion wall for both the maximum spill
of the load resisted be the TCP liner if applicable.” depth and for any intermediate spill
depths.
R8.4.15— The pressure may be

reduced by the portion of the load
resisted be the TCP liner if
applicable.
417. American Petroleum 135 8-11 135 8-11 9.5.4.1 The total prohibition of all shell/bottom For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute penetrations on double and full containment differs Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task from what is proposed in API 625 where such
Group penetrations are allowed in a few cases. R9.5.4.1
seems to recognize that the outright prohibition
applies to LNG (consistent with NFPA59A) but what
about other products? I recommend bringing ACI
376 into conformance with the proposed API 625
and in due course this section might eventually just
become a reference to API 625.
418. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 135 14 135 14 “…single-containment concrete tanks, …”: It seems Disagree. 2010.12.20
Team the author meant “…single-containment concrete Web Ballot
tank bund walls, …”. This applies to tank walls and not
bund walls.
419. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 136 13 124 20 Editorial: change bi to bimp in formula. Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
JH[same Web Ballot
]
420. Widianto 137 1-2 137 1-2 Chapter 10 is about Foundations and I could not find Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
any test requirements for liners in Chapter 10. Web Ballot
9.6.2—Metal liners shall pass the
test requirements in Chapter 10 4.13
to maintain integrity, free from tears
122 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
or cracks, during service conditions.
421. American Petroleum 137 1 137 1 9.6.2 Reference to Chapter 10 (which is Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Institute foundations) makes no sense. It’s not clear what Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task was intended, maybe Chapter 12 on Commissioning. See response 420
Group
422. CB&I 137 3-4 137 3-4 R.9.6.2: “A metal liner acts as an impervious barrier For future action. 2010.12.20
in direct contact with, and usually bonded to, the Web Ballot
concrete.”
Recommend changing to more definitive wording:

Metal liners shall be attached to the concrete wall.
Headed weld studs are usually used, but other
structural connections are acceptable. For full
containment tanks with concrete roofs, the steel
roof liner is usually bonded to the concrete roof with
headed weld studs and forms a composite structural
element, but this is not mandatory. Steel liners
placed on the foundation slab are usually never
bonded to the slab, except perhaps at the perimeter.
Whenever liners are connected to the concrete,
design precautions shall be taken to accommodate
differential strains.
423. CB&I 137 6 137 6 R9.6.2: recommend separating the functions and For future action. 2010.12.20
design considerations of liners by type of liner: 1) Web Ballot
steel liner liquid and gas tight at product
temperature, 2) steel liner gas tight only at
temperature above product temperature, 3) non-
metallic liners, 4) membranes.
424. CB&I 137 12 137 12 R.9.6.2.c: Define “extra” gas pressure. For future action. 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
425. CB&I 137 13 137 13 R.9.6.2.d This seems like a requirement for a coating Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
or a non-metallic liner. The subject of 9.6 metallic Web Ballot
components. Shouldn’t the crack bridging design However, the requirement applies to
requirement be in section 9.8? both metallic and non-metallic liners
and should appear in both places.
123 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Revision as follows:
R9.8.6—Coatings
Coatings can be used as barriers to
vapor and liquid penetration into the
concrete. A primary function is the
need to bridge cracks in the
concrete.
426. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 137 14-16 137 14-16 It is recommended including direction to how For future action. 2010.12.20
Team exactly should the design of the liners consider Web Ballot
resistance to abnormal conditions such as fire, blast
and impact, and earthquakes. Also, It is
recommended including acceptance criteria. For
example, resistance to fire is typically provided by
concrete, and the acceptable condition for the liner
may be specifying a certain maximum temperature
not to be exceeded after specified fire duration.
427. American Petroleum 137 18 137 18 R9.6.2 (i) - The meaning of the term “sacrificial liner” For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute should not be left for readers to figure out. The Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task meaning should be spelled out. See response 428
Group
428. CB&I 137 18 137 18 R9.6.2.i: Create new subclause, “j” to separate the See response 429 2011.02.18
loading considerations from the material selection Webinar
considerations?
Define “sacrificial” liner.

429. American Petroleum 137 19 137 19 R9.6.2 (i) line 19 add “except if the liner remains in Agree. Editorial 2011.02.18
Institute compression due to prestressing” Reason-carbon Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task steel liners are use in LNG service and don’t fail. m) Concrete strain due to
Group shrinkage and prestressing.
Liners, except for sacrificial liners,
must be ductile at all design
temperatures except for cases
where the liner remains in
compression for all load
124 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
combinations due to the effects of
prestressing.
430. American Petroleum 137 20-21 137 20-21 Don’t understand “A membrane is an impervious No action required. 2010.12.20
Institute barrier separated from the concrete by insulation.” Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task Are you trying to cover membrane tanks, where this This is a matter semantics as
Group would apply? These were excluded from the scope. membrane is a term with multiple
meanings. This Code explicitly
excludes membrane tanks.
431. CB&I 138 10-17 138 10-17 Suggest including anchorage of the steel liner Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
embedments in the list of metal components Web Ballot
covered by this section, and adding what the R9.7.1—General
embedment requirements are for sacrificial liners. Metal components covered by this
section are the structural anchorage
for pipe supports, stairs, ladders,
steel liner embedments and other
items supported directly by concrete
foundations, walls, or roofs of
primary or secondary containments.
Components directly in contact with
product, product vapor, and the
exterior environment are included.
Inclusion of the embedment

requirements for sacrificial liners is
for future action.
432. American Petroleum 138 11-14 138 11-14 R9.7.1 Liners are not named in the scope of this For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute section, but could be construed to be included as an Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task “other item supported directly by concrete”. This Agree.
Group important component should not be left unclear. It
should be stated to be included or excluded.
433. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 139 3 127 3 Editorial: Section 4.8 should be 4.7. Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
JH[same Web Ballot
] 9.2.2.1—Minimum reinforcement
ratio of nonprestressed
125 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
reinforcement used for control of
cracking due shrinkage and ambient
temperature stresses shall comply
with Table 9.1. Reinforcement shall
comply with Section 4.8 4.7 when
minimum nonprestressed
reinforcement is considered effective
at service temperatures below 0 oF.
434. American Petroleum 139 8-9 139 8-9 9.7.4(c) Delete “15 degrees warmer than the For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute LODMAT” as this criteria is for steel shells warmed Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task by the liquid they contain.
Group
435. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 139 12 127 11 Editorial: Table 8.1 should be Table 9.1. Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
The minimum reinforcement ratios
shown in Table 8.1 9.1 were
compiled from the applicable
provisions of ACI 350, 318, 372R, and
373R.
436. CB&I 140 11-13 140 11-13 If circumferential embedments are not to be relied For future action. 2010.12.20
on as an “effective liquid barrier” between the Web Ballot
concrete containment and the “metal corner
protection”, then state what is considered an
effective liquid barrier and specify its use. Note that
6.3.4 states that “Calculated crack widths shall be
considered at TCP embedment when cracking would
result in liquid product migrating behind the TCP and
compromising its effectiveness.” This is not a clear
specification requirement either. IF the
circumferential embedments are not to be relied on
as an “effective liquid barrier”, then calculation of
crack widths at the circumferential embed should be
mandatory, and the acceptance criteria should be
stated.
437. CB&I 141 1 141 1 9.8.2 (Concrete roof, 9.8.4) is a subset of 9.8.2 For future action. 2010.12.20
126 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
secondary outer container. Add section to identify Web Ballot
need for liner or coating on foundation slab.
438. CB&I 141 11, 12 141 11, 12 R9.8.4. The statement that concrete may be built up For future action. 2010.12.20
in layers is unclear. It is assumed to mean that layers Web Ballot
be allowed to harden and gain strength prior to
placing subsequent layer. This would require
suitable preparation and detailing of the
construction joint between concrete layers.
Requirements for the construction joint should be
included accordingly.
Also, it is recommended that the alternative to
provide air pressure support of the roof liner to
completely or partially offset the fresh concrete load
be recognized as an alternative.
439. CB&I 141 13-16 141 13-16 Editorial: Update references. Should reference to Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
sections 4.10 and 4.11 instead be to section 4.13 Web Ballot
(Metallic Liners) and 4.15 (Coatings)? 9.8.5—Metal liners
Metal liners equal or thicker than
0.12 in. shall conform to the
requirements of Section 4.10 4.13.
Metal liners less than 0.12 in.
thickness shall be designed to satisfy
the applicable performance criteria
of Section 4.11 4.15.
440. Widianto 141 14-16 141 14-16 The minimum thickness of plate in API 620 is 3/16 For future action. 2010.12.20
in. I understand that there are any other liners that Web Ballot
can be used (other than plate liners per API 620).
However, currently Section 4.13.1 indicates that
plate steel used solely for primary or secondary
containment of RLG shall conform to the
requirements of API 620.
441. American Petroleum 141 15-16 141 15-16 9.8.5 Clearly 4.10 and 4.11 are incorrect references. For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute Perhaps 6.9 and 6.8 respectively are intended. Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task Agree.
Group
127 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
See response 440.
442. American Petroleum 141 18-20 141 18-20 R9.8.5 See comment on 9.6.2(i) above. Liner For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute requirements in too many places, suggest Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task condensing.
Group
443. CB&I 142 4 142 4 9.8.6: Should this section be called “Internal Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Coatings” to distinguish it from external coatings or Web Ballot
paint systems that might be used for different 9.8.6—Internal Coatings
reasons? R9.8.6—Coatings
Coatings Internal coatings can be
used as barriers to vapor and liquid
penetration into the concrete.
9.8.6.1—Coatings Internal coatings
shall conform to the requirements of
Section 6.8 3.13 of this Code.
9.8.6.2—Coatings Internal
coatings shall be applied directly to
the concrete surface. Before
application, the concrete surfaces
shall be grit-blasted or otherwise
treated to make them compatible
with the coating system.
9.8.6.3—Coatings Internal
coatings shall be tested to verify that
they are acceptable for the intended
service.
444. CB&I 142 6 142 6 R9.8.6: Shouldn’t vapor be better defined as Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
“product vapor” and liquid be defined as “product Web Ballot
liquid”? R9.8.6—Coatings
Coatings can be used as barriers to
product vapor and liquid product
penetration into the concrete.
445. CB&I 142 7 142 7 Editorial: Update references. Shouldn’t reference to Agree; line 7 should read "… of 2010.10.24
section 3.13 instead be to 4.15? (Note 4.15 contains Section 3.13 4.15 …" Pittsburgh
no requirements, but redirects the reader to section See item 16 in April 1, 2009 email to
128 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
6.8.) ACI.
Discuss whether to reference 6.8

directly.
446. Krstulovic, Neven 143 1 143 1 Table 9.1 To clarify whether there is a limit on the NK #7 (Gap analysis #13, rank 8) 2010.11.05
thickness to which these minimums apply (e.g., in Web Ballot
ACI 373 that limits it to a 24 inch thick section), add
text as listed below:
1) Add the following footnote to Table 9.1

“FOOTNOTE: Gross concrete area for calculating
minimum reinforcement shall be based on the
smaller of actual member thickness or 24 in.”
2) and adjust 9.2.2.1 as shown below:

9.2.2.1—Minimum reinforcement ratio of
nonprestressed reinforcement used for control
of cracking due shrinkage and ambient
temperature stresses shall comply with Table
9.1. Gross concrete area for calculating
minimum reinforcement shall be based on the
smaller of actual member thickness or 24 in.
Reinforcement shall comply with Section 4.8
when minimum nonprestressed reinforcement
is considered effective at service temperatures
below 0 oF.
3) Also change “LNG” in the table title to “RLG.”
4) In R9.2.2.1, paragraph 2 – change reference from

Table 8.1 to Table 9.1
447. CB&I 144 1 144 1 Fig. R9.1Title should read: Recommendation for For future action. 2010.12.20
increased reinforcing percentage parallel to Web Ballot
construction joints” not “… parallel to bonded
joints” unless bonding is a requirement. If bonding
129 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
is a requirement, then specifications for bonding
compound should be added and the requirement
“concrete ‘bonded’ at joint” should be added to the
wall/floor joint. If bonding is not a requirement
then the requirement for bonding should be
removed from the sketch “joint in floor slab”.
448. CB&I 144 1 144 1 Fig. R9.1Joint in floor slab indicates the use of a Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
waterstop which is not typical in RLG storage tanks. Web Ballot
If a waterstop is a requirement, then the The waterstop will be removed from
specifications for the waterstop should be added to Fig. R9.1.
the specification. If a waterstop is not required, it
should be deleted from the sketch.
449. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 144 12 131 16 Delete last sentence. The 1 inch of cover is Agree. Editorial. 2011.03.18
supported by ACI 350, ACI272R and AWWA D110 Webinar
which is more compelling than the last sentence. See Response 409
The last sentence belongs in the proposed report
and not part of the code.
450. American Petroleum 145 16 145 16 Article conflict (“a the structural engineer”) in 1st Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Institute sentence – Editorial Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task 10.1.1—RLG containers shall be
Group supported on foundations designed
by a the Structural Engineer in
accordance with recognized and
generally accepted structural
engineering practices.
451. CB&I 145 16 145 16 10.1.1 – change to “…designed by a Foundation Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Designer …”. The term Foundation Designer Web Ballot
represents a specific mix of talents that encompass 10.1.1—RLG containers shall be
both geotechnical and structural issues. supported on foundations designed
by a the Structural Foundation
Engineer in accordance with
recognized and generally accepted
structural engineering practices.
452. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 146 5 133 9 The last sentence should be more forceful, suggest Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
the following: “ Field quality control should plays an Web Ballot
130 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
important rope in validating the construction at R9.5.2.1—Form height selected for a
joints where liquid tightness is a concern.” project will generally dictate the
location of horizontal construction
joints for cast-in-place concrete
containment walls.
Special attention must be
paid to detailing and location of the
construction joints, especially in
areas where liquid-tightness is
required. For the areas where liquid
tightness of concrete is to be
assured, details and methods of
construction should be based on
proven practices or testing. The
engineer should provide details and
parameters for joints, and coordinate
the joint design with the contractor’s
execution plan. Field quality control
should play plays an important role
in validating the construction at
joints where liquid-tightness is a
concern.
453. CB&I 146 16 146 16 R10.2.1 – change to “…water table are some of the Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
…”. Too restrictive – other information is just as Web Ballot
important. R10.2.1—Investigation and
engineering analysis
Foundations are critical to the
performance of refrigerated liquid
gas tanks and the limitations on
settlement are very strict as defined
in this Code. Foundations require
detailed geotechnical information
gathering, design, and performance
testing during construction.
Compressibility, shear strength, and
131 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
drainage characteristics of the soils
and the location of the ground water
table are some of the fundamental
information needed for foundation
design. Other physical properties
that may be required include:
454. CB&I 146 22 146 22 10.2.1.1 Change all following “Structural Engineer” For future action. 2010.12.20
term to “Foundation Designer” Web Ballot
Committee needs to determine if
the “Foundation Engineer” has the
same skill set as the “Structural
Engineer”.
455. CB&I 147 7 147 7 10.2.1.1 Change to “may typically include…” Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
R10.2.1.1—The size and weight of a
tank will strongly influence the scope
of the subsurface investigation.
Depending on the predominant type
of foundation material present at the
site, the investigation should may
typically include gathering of existing
data, cone penetration tests (CPTs),
boreholes, trial pits, field load tests,
sampling, laboratory testing, and
geophysical surveys. A phased
investigation process normally yields
the optimum amount of information
cost effectively.
456. CB&I 147 16 147 16 Change to “prediction of lateral pile load – Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
deflection behavior should be furnished.” Web Ballot
R10.2.1.2—Where the design
requires the use of deep
foundations, the Geotechnical
Engineer should provide axial pile
capacities for each size and type of
132 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
pile recommended.
Particularly in seismic regions,

information for the prediction of
lateral pile capacities load –
deflection behavior should be
furnished.
457. CB&I 147 19-22 147 19-22 R10.2.2 – delete paragraph – it is not needed – a Disagree. 2010.12.20
competent foundation engineer will know what a Web Ballot
borehole is. Cannot make the assumption that
the foundation engineer is the
individual using this Code or if they
are competent. An estimator may
use this requirement.
458. American Petroleum 148 6 148 6 10.2.2.1 According to this section, total boring hole For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute number will be calculated as 4 + 5 = 9, if base slab Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task diameter is 80m and its area 5026m2 (54100 ft^2). It
Group seems more than usual, which is only 5 locations.
459. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 148 6 135 2 The metallic cover does not need to be continuous Withdrawn 2011.03.18
over the product height but only over the height of Webinar
the insulation. Suggested rewording: “Metallic shall
be continuous over the product height of the
insulation to be protected or and anchored to the
concrete wall in a manner that prevents product
from leaking behind the metallic cover.”
460. CB&I 148 7 148 7 Para 10.2.2.1 – change to “…tank footprint or at the Disagree. Current text is 2011.02.18
tank perimeter for each additional…”. appropriately worded Webinar
10.2.2.1—Unless otherwise specified

in the project documents, where
foundations are not supported
directly on rock, the following
minimum number of boreholes or
cone penetration tests (CPTs) shall
be performed:
133 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
a) For all tanks, one borehole at the
tank center and three boreholes or
CPT soundings equally spaced at the
tank perimeter; and
b) For tanks larger than 100 ft in
diameter, perform one additional
borehole or CPT inside the tank
footprint for each additional 10,000
ft2 of tank area.
461. CB&I 148 8-15 148 8-15 R10.2.2.1 -- delete paragraph – it is not needed – a Disagree. 2010.12.20
competent foundation engineer will know what a Web Ballot
CPT is. See response 457.
462. CB&I 149 3-6 149 3-6 Para 10.2.2.6This paragraph essentially defines the Disagree. 2010.12.20
intent of Para 10.2.2.3. Combine the two Web Ballot
paragraphs. This explicity establishes the bore
hole equirment without burying it
in another clause.
463. American Petroleum 149 11 149 11 Reference should read Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-05. Agree; lines 11-12 should read "… 2010.10.24
Institute Chapter 11 20, "Site Classification Pittsburgh
Refrigerated Tank Task Procedure for Seismic Design
Group Criteria”, of ASCE/SEI 7."
Revision year however is not needed
because it is provided in Chapter 3
(page 32 line 9).
464. CB&I 150 12 150 12 Para R10.2.2.6 this is a commentary, change to Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
149 7 “Consideration may be given …” Web Ballot
R10.2.2.6— Consideration may
should be given to the The following
factors which may will influence the
selected depth of borings:
465. CB&I 150- 16-23, 150 16-23, Para R10.2.2.7 – This statement is purely an opinion For future action. 2010.12.20
151 1-14 -151 1-14 and should not be included. Other factors Web Ballot
contribute to the choice for additional investigation
points. Delete the whole section of R10.2.2.7
466. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 150 23 137 11 Editorial: Delete and since list continues. Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
134 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
JH[same Web Ballot
] R9.6.2—A metal liner acts as an
impervious barrier in direct contact
with, and usually bonded to, the
concrete. Liners may occur either as
an outer wall lining, or as an inner
wall lining. The primary functions of
a liner are:
a) To make the containment
structure gas-, and/or liquid-tight;
and
b) To prevent water vapor
penetrating the containment. This
would reduce insulation and/or form
ice within the containment system.
The design of the liner should

consider:
a) Service conditions;
b) Potential thermal shock; and
c) Extra gas pressures;
d) etc.
467. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 151 9 137 20 Liner in this code has been used to indicate metallic Disagree. 2010.12.20
components that are in contact with the concrete Web Ballot
and that are separated from the concrete by This distinction is necessary to avoid
insulation. Since this code does not cover confusion.
membrane tanks this distinction is not required.
See response 430
468. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 151 13 138 1 Liners that are sacrificial under cryogenic Withdrawn 2011.03.18
temperatures do not need to be cryogenic grade Webinar
material. Suggested rewording: “Liners which are
required for liquid tightness or structural
reinforcement during thermal loadings will require
material suitable for the design temperatures unless
precompression of the steel is ensured for all design
135 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
cases.”
469. American Petroleum 151 20 151 20 10.2.3.2 Wording is confusing. Suggest instead of Agree that proposed wording is an 2010.10.24
Institute text up through parentheses say “For site classes C, improvement. Pittsburgh
Refrigerated Tank Task D, and E a soil-structure interaction analysis …”
Group
470. CB&I 152 10 152 10 Para R10.2.3.4 – The performance criteria should be For future action. 2010.12.20
spelled out or summarized here in case the location Web Ballot
of the requirement changes location in the next Discussion Note: reference to NFPA
edition of NFPA 59A. 59A is to 2006 edition. See page 34
line 10 of Chapter 3 – Referenced
Standards.
471. American Petroleum 152 12 152 12 10.3 Should add mention of “modulus of subgrade For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute reaction” for shallow foundations. Additionally, Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task information should be provided in the geotechnical
Group report about usage of friction between the base slab
and soil to provide additional lateral resistance.
472. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 152 19 139 3 A thermal analysis that predicts the temperature of Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
a concrete anchor above the liquid level will always Web Ballot
be warmer than the product temperature. Reword 9.7.4—The temperature used in
“The warmer of product temperature or The design shall be based on location as
temperature determined in accordance with follows:
Chapter 6 8 where metal …..” a) Product temperature where metal
components are below the interior
liquid level of primary or secondary
containments;
b) The warmer of product
temperature or the The temperature
determined from analysis in
accordance with Chapter 6 8 where
metal components are above the
interior liquid level of primary or
secondary containments; and
etc.
473. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 152 22 139 6 The design metal temperature should be the colder Withdrawn 2011.03.18
of the two criteria. Suggested rewording: “For metal Webinar
136 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
components on the exterior of concrete
containments the design metal temperature shall be
the colder of the temperature determined from
analysis in accordance with Chapter 8 and the
lowest 1-day mean ambient temperature” The 15 F
increase in temperature is not applicable and is
deleted since it does not meet the requirements of
API 620 where this provision originated.
474. American Petroleum 153 9 153 9 Should reference be PIP STE03020? Please clarify. Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Refrigerated Tank Task R10.3.1—General…..
Group Concrete ring beam foundations
should be designed using the
procedures found in PIP 2005c. PIP
STE03020, “Guidelines for Tank
Foundation Designs” Ring beam
foundations are normally sized such
that the bearing pressure below the
ring foundation is approximately
equal to the average sustained
pressure below the tank at the same
depth. Ring beam foundations
should be adequately reinforced to
resist hoop stresses. The magnitude
of the lateral pressure is heavily
dependent on the type of the fill
material used inside the ring and the
method of placement.
Also add to

reports
in the Code.
137 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Process Industry Practices

Those portions of PIP STE03020,
“Guidelines for Tank Foundation
Designs” (2005), that deal with the
design of concrete ring beam
foundations
These publications may be obtained

for these organizations:
Process Industry Practices

3925 West Braker Lane (R4500)
Austin, Texas 78759
info@pip.org
Response 474, 475.

475. CB&I 153 19-22 153 19-22 Para R10.3.1 – There are several methods for design For future action. 2010.12.20
9-10 of ringwalls. PIP 2005c is one way – not the only Web Ballot
way. Listing just one is too specific. The method Response 474, 475.
should be left up to the competent Foundation
Designer.
476. CB&I 153 20 153 20 R10.3.2.1 Remove sentence “The approach defined For future action. 2010.12.20
in Duncan ..purpose.” There are several methods Web Ballot
how to perform this and we should leave this to the
Foundation Designer.
477. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 153 21 140 6 Editorial: section reference should be 9.7.5(b). Agree; line 6 should read "… 2010.10.24
JH[same described in 8.7.2(b) 9.7.5(b) …" Pittsburgh
] See item 15 in April 1, 2009 email to
ACI.
478. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 154 4 140 11 Circumferential embedment plates are provided Persuasive, make the following 2010.12.16
with anchorage that prevents the embedment plate changes. Webinar
from shrinking away from the concrete surface. The Continuous circumferential
embedded plate does provide an effective liquid embedments, such as those used for
barrier and is the typical configuration. This portion anchorage of thermal corner
138 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
of the commentary should be deleted or rewritten. protection, will shrink away from the
concrete surface, and without
careful design and detailing should
not be relied upon as an effective
liquid barrier between the concrete
containment and the metal corner
protection.
479. American Petroleum 154 9- 18 154 9- 18 10.3.2.4 I don’t understand how the CODE can For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute mandate that allowable bearing pressures must Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task conform to Table 10.1, and then the COMMENTARY
Group says that the safety factors in Table 10.1 can be
reduced. Doesn’t the code side need to address
permitted variations from Table 10.1?
480. CB&I 154 15 154 15 Editorial: Para. R10.3.2.4 Change to “defined in Table Agree; line 15 should read "… in 2010.10.24
5.1 ….” Table 5.2 5.1 …" Pittsburgh
ACI.
481. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 155 15 141 16 What performance requirements are thin metal Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
liners required to meet? Should section 4.11.be Web Ballot
section 6.8? See response 439.
482. American Petroleum 156 13 156 13 10.3.4 It is better to express these safety factors in a For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute table like table 10.1 and 10.2 Web Ballot
Group
483. CB&I 156 15 156 15 Para. 10.3.4. Change to “The minimum factor of For future action. 2010.12.20
safety against sliding due to service level loads Web Ballot
(unfactored loads) shall not be less than 1.5 for wind
and OBE, and 1.0 for SSE loading cases.”
484. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 156 22 143 1 Editorial: Table title should refer to RLG not LNG. Agree. 2010.10.24
JH[same Pittsburgh
]
485. CB&I 157 3, 4 157 3, 4 Para. R10.3.4 change to “The maximum ultimate Agree. Editorial 2011.03.18
coefficient of friction should be tan 30 degree unless Webinar
testing validates a higher value. The maximum Response 485, 524.
allowable frictional resistance under wind lateral
139 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
load is equal to 0.40 with a safety factor of 1.5. The
coefficient of friction should consider the materials
underlying the tank bottom.”
486. American Petroleum 157 9 157 9 Recommend adding the word “foundation base Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Institute slabs”. Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task 10.3.5—Settlement
Group The effect of immediate and long-
term settlement on strength and
serviceability shall be considered in
the design of foundation base slabs,
containments and connections to
adjacent equipment, plant piping,
and other systems.
487. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 158 Top 144 Top Delete the waterstop or state that waterstop is Agree. Change made. 2010.10.24
Fig. Fig. optional as it is not always required. See 2-column version dated Pittsburgh
2010.03.01.
488. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 158 Bot. 144 Bot. Delete “Note” since Figure 4.4 is not included. Agree. Change made. 2010.10.24
Fig. Fig. Reinforcing percentage varies depending on service See 2-column version dated Pittsburgh
conditions. Also remove reference to “sump”. 2010.03.01.
489. American Petroleum 158 14 158 14 Requirement is not clear. Is it 1 in 300 with a Response 489, 490, 530. 2010.10.24
Institute maximum of 3/8 in.? If it is a maximum of 3/8 in in Agree that "3/8 in." should be Pittsburgh
Refrigerated Tank Task 300 feet, it may be too conservative. deleted.
Group
490. CB&I 158 14 158 14 Para 10.3.5.2 – delete 3/8 in. so that the line reads: Response 489, 490, 530. 2010.10.24
“…a maximum of 1/300;”. Agree that "3/8 in." should be Pittsburgh
deleted.
491. CB&I 159 5,6 159 5,6 Para 10.4.1.1 – Replace this sentence with “The Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
selection and design of the deep foundation system Web Ballot
shall be conducted by the Foundation Designer in 10.4.1.1—The selection and design
close cooperation with the Geotechnical Engineer of the deep foundation system shall
and the Structural Engineer. “ be conducted by the Foundation
Designer in close cooperation with
the project’s Geotechnical Engineer
in close cooperation with and the
Structural Engineer.
140 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
492. CB&I 160 3 160 3 Para R10.4.2 – Replace with “Many types of piles can For future action. 2010.12.20
be utilized.” Driven and CIP piles are not the only Web Ballot
types. Response 492, 493, 494, 495.
493. CB&I 160 5 160 5 Para R10.4.2 – Delete “Such a program is most For future action. 2010.12.20
effectively conducted shortly after the geotechnical Web Ballot
investigation.” The pile test program can be done at Response 492, 493, 494, 495.
any time prior to start of production piles. Linking it
to the geotechnical investigation is not needed.
494. CB&I 160 6 160 6 Para R10.4.2 – Add “Where possible, …” before “All Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
piles…”. It is not always possible to wire all test Web Ballot
piles. Use “may” instead of “should” Disagree that “should” be replaced
with “may”.
R10.4.2—Piles
Piles can include both driven piles
and cast-in-place concrete piles.
An early pile selection and testing

program to test and determine pile
load characteristics, pile installation
methods, and procedures can be
beneficial. Such a program is most
effectively conducted shortly after
the geotechnical investigation.
Where possible, all All piles installed
under the program should be
electronically monitored and
evaluated. Tested piles may be
incorporated into the final design.
However, the program does not
represent the start of construction as
it is an extension of testing.
Response 492, 493, 494, 495.

495. American Petroleum 160 7 160 7 Electronic monitoring is not clear. Does the code For future action. 2010.12.20
141 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Institute mean a dynamic analysis program? Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task Response 492, 493, 494, 495.
Group
496. American Petroleum 160 16 160 16 Should the dimensional tolerances for Steel H-Piles For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute be governed by AISC? Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task Response 497, 499.
Group
497. American Petroleum 160 22-23 160 22-23 Blow counts should be performed by the best For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute method possible. If you have multiple rigs operating Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task (which is the case for most piles), it may be Response 497, 499.
Group impossible to get the right count electronically if it is
done by the sound.
498. CB&I 160 22, 23 160 22, 23 R10.4.2.1 -- Add “Where possible, …” before “Pile Non-persuasive. Editorial. 2010.12.20
blow…”. It is not always possible to record the blow Web Ballot
counts electronically. replace ‘fabrication” with Terminology “where possible” is
“installation”. addressed by our use of the word
“should”. The committee did intend
to use “fabrication” and not
“installation” in the text.
499. CB&I 161 1-3 161 1-3 R10.4.2.1 – Reference to the FHWA course is too Disagree. 2010.12.20
specific. Leave the requirements to the project Web Ballot
specifications as stated in line 23. This is in the Commentary section
and
provides a source of guidance to the
user.
500. American Petroleum 161 11 161 11 Reference numbers are not clear. Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Refrigerated Tank Task R10.4.2.2—Cast-in-place piles
Group Cast-in-place piles include drilled
caissons, drilled piers, auger-cast-in-
place piles, and
auger-displacement-pressure-
grouted piles (ADPGP). Proprietary
methods of construction are often
used.
142 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Cast-in-place pile safety factors are
usually higher than those for driven
piles due to higher uncertainty in the
constructed condition. Additional
guidance may be found in ASCE/SEI
7 (2005) ASCE 1997, ACI 336.1
(Specification for the Construction
of Drilled Piers, 2001), and the
Process Industry Practices PIP
STS02380, Application of ACI 336.1-
01, Specification for the
Construction of Drilled Piers (2006),
PIP STE02465, Auger-Cast-In-Place
Piles Design Guidelines (2005)
2005a, and PIP STS02465, Auger-
Cast-In-Place Pile Installation
Specification (2005) 2005b.
501. Matrix Service (Gianni) 161 12 148 1 Are Standard Penetration Tests not permitted by this Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
section as part of the subsurface investigation? Webinar
SPT testing is common in US practice,
Committee note - This comment is understood to and should be included. Add SPT
be referring to section "10.2.2—Number, location, testing to the list of things that are
and depth of boreholes and cone penetration allowed.
tests" on page 148 line 1.
R10.2.2—Number, location, and
depth of boreholes and cone
penetration tests
Borings are generally small-diameter
holes drilled into the ground to allow
soil classification, determination of
ground- water, access for in-place
tests, Standard Penetration Tests
(SPT), and collection of soil samples
for additional tests.
502. Matrix Service (Gianni) 161 22 147 14 R10.2.1.2 should be written in mandatory language For future action. 2010.12.20
143 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
and moved over to the code side. These design Web Ballot
parameters should not optional. The uplift capacity
of the piles should also be provided by the
Geotechnical Engineer.
503. CB&I 162 1-7 162 1-7 R10.4.2.3 – Rewrite to address all types of piles. The For future action. 2010.12.20
existing words address only driven piles. Web Ballot
504. CB&I 163 4,5 163 4,5 R10.4.3.2 replace with “…piles may be determined Disagree. 2010.12.20
by a test performed in accordance with ASTM Web Ballot
D3689, dynamic test, osterberg cell and others.” ASTM D3689 has been proven to
work to determine the ultimate
tensile capacity of a pile. No
standardized tests are provided for
the dynamic test or the Osterberg cell
test. Further, specifying “others”
opens up the acceptance to ANY test.
505. American Petroleum 163 12 163 12 10.4.4.1c) This section is not required because For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute settlement can be evaluated by b). Web Ballot
Group
506. CB&I 164 16 164 16 R10.4.5.3 replaced “AISC 2005” with “ASCE 7-05”. Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
ASCE 7 considers the soil, test results, and steel Web Ballot
allowables. R10.4.5.3—Safety factors for piles
under tension loading are applicable
to soil resistance of piles in
compression and tension. Allowable
stress levels for steel piles under load
are given by the AISC 2005 ASCE/SEI
7 (2005).
Allowable loads for concrete piles

under load are determined in
accordance with ACI 350 or ACI 318.
507. CB&I 164 17,18 164 17,18 R10.4.5.3 change to “Ultimate strength for concrete Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
piles … with ACI 350 or ACI 318” Web Ballot
See response 506.
508. CB&I 164 22, 23 164 22, 23 Para R10.4.6 – Either delete or Replace second For future action. 2010.12.20
144 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
sentence with “The design of the pile and/or pile Web Ballot
group should be based on a determination of the Response 508, 509, 510.
lateral deflection of the pile head and distribution of
resulting moment and shear along the pile shaft
using a method of analysis that takes into account
such issues as pile-soil interaction, load duration,
load repetition, structural restraint at the pile head
and the effect of pile group action.” The pile design
is performed by the Foundation Engineer.
509. CB&I 165 2 165 2 Para R10.4.6 – Delete reference to PIP 2005a. Too Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
specific. Web Ballot
R10.4.6—Lateral load resistance
The effect of lateral loads on pile
foundations should be evaluated.
The geotechnical Engineer should
design the pile and/or pile group
based upon a determination of the
lateral deflection of the pile head
and distribution of resulting moment
and shear along the pile shaft using a
method of analysis that takes into
account pile-soil elastic interaction,
load duration, load2 repetition,
structural restraint at the pile head,
and the effect of group action (PIP
2005a).
Response 508, 509, 510.

510. CB&I 165 6-9 165 6-9 Para R10.4.6 – Delete all of this paragraph. Should Disagree. 2011.03.18
not reference commercial programs. There are Web Ballot
other methods that can be used. The last sentence This is in the Commentary section
is out of context and not needed. and provides a source of guidance
to the user.
Response 508, 509, 510.
145 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
- Consider removing the year 2005

after the program name L-Pile. The
actual name is L-Pile ver. 5.0 and it
will most likely be updated in the
future. Suggest just naming it as L-
Pile.
511. CB&I 165 13 165 13 Para. R10.4.6.1 delete “by the Geotechnical For future action. 2010.12.20
Engineer”. The appropriate people will review the Web Ballot
test results. The assumption that appropriate
people will be involved cannot be
made.
512. CB&I 165 17 165 17 Para. 10.4.6.3 change to “predicted tank foundation Agree – change made. 2010.10.24
deflections with allowable pile deflections and by …. Pittsburgh
513. CB&I 165 19 165 19 Para 10.4.6.4 change to “Tank foundation Agree – change made. 2010.10.24
deflections …” Pittsburgh
514. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 166 23 JH[152] 2 Editorial: Section reference should be 8.1.3. No action required. 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
Committee note – Cannot find text being discussed. Could not identify the text in the
comment.
515. CB&I 168 11-15 168 11-15 Para 10.6.1.3 Consider deleting this section. ACI 350 Disagree. 2010.12.20
covers the requirement for mix design already. Web Ballot
These are durability requirements
and essential to long service life.
See Response 516.

516. CB&I 168 16-19 168 16-19 Para R10.6.1.3 Consider deleting this section. ACI Disagree. 2010.12.20
350 covers the requirement for mix design already. Web Ballot
These are durability requirements
and essential to long service life.
See Response 515.

517. Matrix Service (Gianni) 168 1 153 1 ?? Provide clarification of “Transition zones”. For future action. 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
Committee note - This comment is understood to Existing text
146 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
be referring to the term "transitional zones" on Transitional zones should be
page 153 line 1. provided below the tank bottom to
avoid abrupt changes in select fill or
foundation thickness.
518. Krstulovic, Neven 168 9 168 9 R10.6.1.2 – Cathodic protection does not have to be NK #23 (Gap analysis #20, rank 23) 2010.11.05
isolated, but the design should account for all metals D.J., Pawski, Ballard, Howe, NKO, Web Ballot
and be electrically bonded to the system. Most Domas, Hoff, Garrison, Hoptay,
often the metal parts referenced here are bonded to Meier supported (100%)
the main plant grounding system. There is no way to
provide cathodic protection without isolation of the STEVE to pursue this
parts to be protected and there is no way to account
for all metals and be electrically bonded to the
system.
519. CB&I 169 7,8 169 7,8 Para R10.6.1.4 – Make this a separate sub- Agree. Incorporate text into 2010.10.24
paragraph. It has nothing to do with drainage issues paragraph discussing air gap on page Pittsburgh
that the rest of the paragraph is addressing. 170 lines 3-5.
See also comment 558.
520. Blanchard, J. for NFPA 169 22 169 22 R10.6.2.1 Although this is part of the commentary, Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
59A Task Group the foundation should be protected from the 32oF Webinar
isotherm, as noted in the provision paragraph, not R10.6.2.1—The soil beneath a tank
40oF. bearing on the ground is prone to
losing heat to the
tank, and this may lead to freezing of
the ground and cause frost heave in
temperate climates.
Controlling the position of the 40 °F

32oF isotherm prevents freezing the
soil below the tank that can cause
frost heave forces on the base of the
tank. Frost heave may be avoided by
trace heating the base slab or
elevating the base slab, allowing
heat input to the foundation through
natural air convection.
147 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Also see Response 556.

521. American Petroleum 171 3,4 171 3,4 R10.6.2.1 We suggest that 376 should say that 6’ Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
Institute high is recommended “if lateral load conditions Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task permit”. See Response 522 for changes..
Group
522. CB&I 171 3,4 171 3,4 Para. R10.6.2.1 remove the whole sentence Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
“Normally, to meet .. 6 ft high and 6 ft wide..”. The Webinar
designers will determine the access limitations R10.6.2.1—…………….
based upon the owner’s specifications and specified
codes. Deflectors may be used to increase
airflow under the tank. The air gap
should be sufficient to allow
adequate airflow and reasonable
access under the tank for monitoring
and cleaning purposes. Normally, to
meet access requirements, a space
approximately 6 ft high and 6 ft wide
should be provided. The dimensions
of the space may be adjusted on
agreement of the Owner and
Engineer. The space should remain
drained and dry during normal
operations.

523. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 171 11 156 10 ?? Does the foundation design permit the partial For future action. 2010.12.20
uplifting of the foundation during overturning Web Ballot
loadings such as seismic loadings? Existing text
10.3.3.3—Shallow foundations shall
be sized to resist uplift forces where
needed.
524. Matrix Service (Gianni) 172 20 156 14 The 0.40 coefficient of friction has an inherent factor Agree. Editorial 2011.03.18
157 4 of safety which is nominally 1.5. Does the minimum Webinar
factor of safety recognize this or is it intended to Response 485, 524.
148 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
place an additional factor of safety on the sliding
resistance?
525. American Petroleum 173 14 173 14 10.7.3 “the foundation” should include “foundation Disagree. Putting inclinometers in 2011.02.18
Institute and pile”. piles will usually not give useful Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task information under a tank except
Group under the odd circumstance where
a tank is built on a potentially
unstable slope. Inclinometers in
tubes that are initially horizontal
give useful information about
settlement.
10.7.3—Inclinometers
Inclinometers shall be installed in the
foundation for site classes other than
Site Class A (hard rock) or Site Class B
(firm rock) as defined in ASCE/SEI 7
(2005) ASCE 7-05.
See response 565.

526. CB&I 174 3-8 174 3-8 Para. 10.7.5 and R10.7.5 – Delete these paragraphs. For future action. 2010.12.20
Seismic monitoring is usually an owner requirement. Web Ballot
While perhaps a good idea, it is not appropriate to Response 526, 527, 528.
include this requirement in a concrete design code.
527. American Petroleum 174 3 174 3 10.7.5 Multiple seismometers should not be For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute required on all tanks. One seismometer is normally Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task enough to record the seismic event. Refer to API625 Response 526, 527, 528.
Group section 7.5.3.
528. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 174 3 174 3 Section 10.7.5 Seismic monitoring “The seismic For future action. 2010.12.20
Team response of the RLG tank shall be monitored by Web Ballot
triaxial accelerometers mounted at the foundation Response 526, 527, 528.
and the roof of the tank. A third accelerometer shall
be located at a free-field site at a distance of at least
two tank diameters away from the tank and other
major structures.” Comment: This is a very good
149 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
requirement. However current NFPA59A does not
have such a requirement. Will the NFPA59A include
this in the future?
529. CB&I 174 10 174 10 10.8 Monitoring Frequency For future action. 2010.12.20
This Code is for design and construction. It is not Web Ballot
intended for operation. All operation monitoring
requirements are not appropriate for this Code. A
requirement to have the ability to monitor is
appropriate and monitoring prior to commissioning
is appropriate.
530. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 174 11 158 14 Editorial: delete “of 3/8 in.” Response 489, 490, 530. 2010.10.24
JH[same Agree that "3/8 in." should be Pittsburgh
] deleted.
531. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 174 12 158 15 Suggest replacing “footing” with the more generic Agree. 2010.10.24
“foundation”. Pittsburgh
532. American Petroleum 175, 18- 175, 18-23, 10.8.4 & 10.8.5 Recommend deleting these For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute 176 23, 1- 176 1-4 sections. Basis is that these are on-going Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task 4 MAINTINANCE INSTRUCTIONS indicated for the
Group owner to follow after tank is in service. Seems out
of proper scope of the code.
533. CB&I 176 12 176 12 Para. 10.9.2.1 Replace “precise” with “actual” Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
10.9.2.1—The precise actual location
in the foundation of each pile, every
load of concrete, or component must
be traceable.
See Response 536.

534. American Petroleum 176 19 176 19 Recommend “Field weld splices…” in lieu of Field Agree. 2010.10.24
Institute splices. Pittsburgh
Group
535. CB&I 176 9,10 176 9,10 Paragraph 10.9.1 – replace with “…..be performed as Agree. 2010.10.24
directed by the project specifications.” Pittsburgh
536. CB&I 176 12,16 176 12,16 Paragraph 10.9.2.1 – Adding total traceability is a Should be discussed in Committee
150 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
new requirement – especially for loads of concrete 2011.03.18 webinar
and lots of rebar. Adds significant cost. This
normally an owner requirement if desired. This is
too strict for many instances.
537. CB&I 176 19,20 176 19,20 Para 10.9.2.5 – Need to allow use of ASME welding Item 537 creates a new section 11.10 2011.02.18
as well. and related commentary. The Webinar
commentary needs to reference API
620 for completeness (see below).
Otherwise, move text needs to
original location in Ch. 10.
Add a new section 11.10:
11.10 Welding of Structural

Steel and Steel Reinforcement
“11.10.1 Welding of structural

steel Procedures for welding
steel components and steel
reinforcement connections or
splices shall be in accordance
with written Weld Procedure
Specifications (WPS) performed
by qualified welders.”
“R11.10.1 Welding is only to be

performed by qualified welders
in accordance with a Weld
Procedure Specification (WPS)
for the type of weld being made.
WPS’s can be based on test
(Procedure Qualification
Records, PQR’s) or prequalified
WPS’s such as those permitted
in ANSI/AWS D1.1. Project
151 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
requirements for developing

WPS’s should comply with ASME
Section IX or AWS B2.1 for
structural welding, and
ANSI/AWS D1.4 requirements
for welding of steel
reinforcement. Project
requirements for procedures for
welding of steel plate elements
and associated welder
qualification should be based on
API 620 sections 6.7 and 6.8.”
Reason for Change to web ballot:

Because Chapter 11 is applicable to
the entire containment structure,
and the associated plate steel that
may be part of the structure,
reference API 620 requirements for
weld procedure and welder
qualification need to be included in
the commentary discussion.
For reference, welding associated
with concrete RLG containments can
include the following:
Welding of reinforcement that is
covered by ANSI/AWS D1.4.
Fabrication welding of embedments
and field welding to embedments.
Usually per AWS D1.1 for carbon
steel and AWS D1.6 for stainless
steel. Note that API 620 section
152 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
6.7.1 refers to same AWS standards
for welding of ladders, platforms and
misc. assemblies.
Stud welding to embedments and
plate-steel liners is covered AWS
D1.1.
Welding of plate steel liners whether
composite or non-composite would
be covered by API 620 which uses
ASME Section IX as the basis for
procedure and welder qualification.
Further for information, welding
procedure and welder qualification
requirements in AWS D1.1, ASME
Section IX, and API 620 are similar,
and for all practical purposes
produce the same result.
538. CB&I 177 16 177 16 Para 10.9.3.4 – When lots of activity is going on , it For future action. 2010.12.20
may be very difficult to get this data to the owner in Web Ballot
one day. Too tight of a time line. Time is needed Existing text
for the contractor and sub-contractor to review the 10.9.3.4—All load tests, dynamic pile
data first. This is normally an owner requirement. driving monitoring, and pile driving
Perhaps one can say “… in a timely manner.” records shall be documented and
presented to the Owner’s
Representative both in paper copy
and electronic files within 1 day of
completion unless otherwise agreed.
539. Matrix Service (Gianni) 178 7 160 4?? Given the critical nature of these structures and the Add the following. 2011.02.18
162 1?? strict performance criteria and severe loadings 10.4.2 Piles Webinar
should not pile load tests be mandatory and a Unless otherwise specified, ultimate
minimum number of tests required? capacity of single piles shall be
determined by static or dynamic
Committee note - This comment is understood to testing.
be referring to either: R10.4.2 starting on page 160
153 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
line 3, 10.4.2.3 – Test pile program
or R10.4.2.3 starting on page 162 line 1. Number and type of tests to be
conducted shall be specified in the
RP comment: there is no code text in 10.4.2 and contract documents by the
10.4.2.3 for the accompanying the commentary. geotechnical and structural
Suggest the following: engineer.
For 10.4.2 add "Unless otherwise specified,
ultimate capacity of single piles shall be
determined by static or dynamic testing."
For 10.4.2.3 add "Number and type of tests to be
conducted shall be specified in the contract
documents."
540. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 178 9 160 4?? If a load test is required, guidance for determining See Response 539. 2011.02.18
the load to which the pile is to be tested should be Webinar
included in the commentary.
541. Krstulovic, Neven 179 4 179 4 Chapter 11 The ACI 117, Specifications for NK #2 (Gap analysis #15, rank #2) 2010.10.24
16-17 Tolerances for Concrete Construction and Materials, (3/20/2010 – Berner, Hoff, Hjorteset, Pittsburgh
currently is not based on as-built data. While some Domas, NKO, Ballard, Hoptay,
of the tolerances could be less restrictive, due to the Brannan, Pawski
lack of data on selecting less conservative values,
presented existing values should be kept as-is.
However, Code text should be updated as shown Correct reference in line 17 is
below: "Sections 11.2.1 to 11.2.5."
“Unless otherwise specified in the project ACI.
documents:
1) Tolerances shall be in accordance with ACI 117,
and
2) Additional requirements listed in Sections 11.2.1
to 11.2.8 shall also be satisfied.”
542. CB&I 180 3 180 3 Verify statement, “These tolerances are typically in For future action. 2010.12.20
line with established LNG/LPG practice.” What is the Web Ballot
value of this statement? Consider removing.
543. CB&I 181 13 181 13 Maximum tank wall radius tolerance at top of wall is For future action. 2010.12.20
154 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
14 too restrictive. Allow maximum of 1.25 in. Web Ballot
544. CB&I 181 15 181 15 Maximum tank wall radius tolerance at base of wall For future action. 2010.12.20
12 is too restrictive. Allow maximum of 2.0 in. Web Ballot
545. Matrix Service (Gianni) 182 17 Provide clarification of the concept. None of the 10.3.4—Sliding resistance The 2010.12.20
concepts shown in Appendix A appear to show this minimum factor of safety against Web Ballot
concept. sliding shall not be less than 1.50 for
wind and OBE loading cases, and 1.2
Committee note – Cannot find text being discussed. for SSE loading cases.
Is the reference possibly to 10.5 Ground
Improvement on page 166 line 19? 10.4.6.2—Sliding resistance of
unanchored tanks supported by
deep foundations shall comply with
minimum factors of safety in Section
10.3.4 of this Code.
546. Legatos, Nicholas A. 183 4 183 4 Sec. 11.2.3.1.4: Insert a comma after “sliding base” Agree – change made. 2010.10.24
Pittsburgh
Also included in Gap Analysis, but
unnumbered.
547. CB&I 183 15-16 183 15-16 Tolerances for temporary construction access Agree that 1" is more reasonable 2010.10.24
openings should be subject to the minimum tolerance for location and Pittsburgh
tolerances set forth herein or as specified by the dimensions in elevation.
Engineer. ½in seems too restrictive. Consider
allowing 1in.
548. CB&I 183 22 183 22 Editorial: Delete the word “are” following the word Agree – change made. 2010.10.24
“tolerances”. Pittsburgh
549. Krstulovic, Neven 185 8 185 8 11.3.1 Strength is only one factor desired in NK #8 (Gap analysis #24, rank 13) 2010.11.05
shotcrete. A very high cement content is desired to Web Ballot
establish and maintain high alkalinity for corrosion
protection of the prestressed reinforcement. Such
additional pieces of the information are useful to a
designer. Therefore, add following text to Due to renumbering, correct section
Commentary: number is R11.3.1
R9.3.1 – Proportioning shotcrete

Wire coating material is typically made using
155 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
one part Portland cement and not more than
three parts fine aggregate by weight.
Body coating material is typically made using

one part Portland cement and not more than
four parts fine aggregate by weight.
550. Kuebitz, Karl 185 12 185 befor Add “R11.3.1 – Polypropylene fibers conforming to Include with response 549. 2010.11.05
e10 C1116 are commonly used in the shotcrete mix to Web Ballot
help mitigate shrinkage cracking.”
551. Krstulovic, Neven 186 1-16 186 1-16 R11.3.3.2 The details in lines 2 through 16 - though NK #17 (Gap analysis #--) 2010.11.05
important – do not belong in this document but are Web Ballot
best left to the “practice-specific” reference
standards. Therefore, introduce the following
change:
“Application of shotcrete is material and

workmanship sensitive, and should comply with
the requirements of ACI 350 and ACI 372R. , and
tThe following is included for information and
guidance:
552. Legatos, Nicholas A. 186 1-16 186 1-16 Sec. R11.3.3.2, Lines 1 & 2: “Application of shotcrete Similar to response 551. 2010.11.05
is material and workmanship sensitive, and the Discuss deleting lines 3-16. Web Ballot
following is included for information and guidance.
should comply with the requirements of ACI 350 and
ACI 372R
Delete lines 3 through 16
553. Kuebitz, Karl 186 16 186 16 Add “(d) Nozzles may be mounted on power driven Include with response 552. 2010.11.05
machinery enabling the nozzle to travel parallel to Web Ballot
the exterior surface and spray at a uniform linear or
bi-directional speed. Automated shotcrete has been
used on most externally prestressed tanks over 20
million gallons in capacity.”
554. Kuebitz, Karl 186 23 186 23 Add “the exterior of tank may be wrapped in plastic Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
to maintain moisture in the shotcrete”. Web Ballot
R11.3.3.3—Curing of the wire coat
156 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
should be started immediately after
shotcrete placement without
damaging the shotcrete.
Maintaining the relative humidity

naturally or artificially, near or above
95% over the shotcrete surface is an
acceptable method of curing in
accordance with ACI 506R.
Curing compounds applied to

intermediate layers of shotcrete may
interfere with the bonding of
subsequent layers and thus their use
is prohibited.
The exterior of the tank may be

wrapped in plastic to maintain
moisture in the shotcrete.
555. Kuebitz, Karl 187 20 187 20 Replace “the normal method used” with “one way”. Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
R11.3.3.5—Vertical screed wires are
the normal one method used to
establish uniform and correct
thickness of shotcrete and should be
spaced not more than 36 in. apart
circumferentially. Wires should be
installed under tension, defining the
outside surface of the shotcrete from
top to bottom. Wires generally are
18- to 20-gauge high-tensile-strength
steel wire. Other methods may be
used that will provide positive
control of the thickness. Automated
shotcrete with the nozzle traveling
157 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
parallel to the surface at a known
linear or bi-directional speed
ensures uniform coverage and
thickness over the entire exterior
surface.
556. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 188 1 169 22 Revise 40F to 32F to be consistent with 10.6.2.1. Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
Webinar
R10.6.2.1—The soil beneath a tank
bearing on the ground is prone to
losing heat to the
tank, and this may lead to freezing of
the ground and cause frost heave in
temperate climates. Controlling the
position of the 40 32°F isotherm
prevents freezing the soil below the
tank that can cause frost heave
forces on the base of the tank. Frost
heave may be avoided by trace
heating the base slab or elevating
the base slab, allowing heat input to
the foundation through natural air
convection.
Also see Response 520.

557. Kuebitz, Karl 188 2 188 2 Add “Automated shotcrete with the nozzle traveling Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
parallel to the surface at a known linear or bi- Web Ballot
directional speed ensures uniform coverage and See Response 555.
thickness over the entire exterior surface.”
558. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 189 5 171 3 The 6 ft high space is not typical for pile supported Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
tanks, and pile spacing may need to be closer than Webinar
six feet. These values should be removed from the Numerous LNG tanks have been built
commentary. Also the air space required is with 24" nominal air space without
dependent on in some part to the stored product. any known detrimental affects.
See Response 522 for changes..
158 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
559. Widianto 190 19-23 172 11-15 Do we need to specify the required minimum For future action. 2010.12.20
holding time during hydrotest for settlement Web Ballot
readings? For example, we need to keep at least 24
hours at full hydrotest level. Settlement readings
should be taken when the water reaches the full
hydrotest level and after 24 hour holding period.
This is probably more important in clay-type soil
where the settlement can occur after a longer
period than that in sandy soil.
560. Widianto 190 19-20 172 11-12 Section R10.7.1 Settlement measurement should Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
also be taken prior to hydrotesting to obtain Web Ballot
baseline data R10.7.1—Baseline elevations of the
tank foundation should be
established prior to hydrotesting.
Settlement at tank center is

measured remotely with
inclinometers discussed in 10.7.3, or
in the case of hydrotest by entering
the tank and making a level survey
after testing.
See Response 658.

561. Krstulovic, Neven 190 4 190 4 11.4.4.2 There should be a requirement for a full NK #10 (Gap analysis #27, rank 18) 2010.11.05
scale vertical tendon grout test. While this is more Web Ballot
difficult than the horizontal test, the vertical test
would confirm that (a) bleed requirements are met
at the tendon top, and (b) the means and methods
for the vertical tendon grouting are satisfactory.
Therefore, add to the commentary side “and
vertical”, as shown below:
10 R11.4.4.2—Full-scale grouting tests, using a mock-

up, should be performed on the horizontal and
159 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
vertical tendons to specifically demonstrate the
suitability of the selection of tendon, grout and
distribution of vent tubes and selection of pumping
equipment. After the grouting trials the tendon
should be cut transversely and inspected at selected
locations before commencement of grouting
operations on the structure. The grouting trials
should ensure the following; …….
562. Widianto 191 5 172 19 There is a conflict between Section Q.8.4.2 of API NK #22 (Gap analysis #28, rank 20) 2010.11.05
620 and Section 10.7.2 of ACI 376 related to the Web Ballot
minimum number of survey points.
Section Q.8.4.2 of API 620 requires at least 4 points
whereas Section 10.7.2.1 of ACI 376 requires at least
8 points and Section 10.7.2.2 indicates that the
spacing < 33ft.
563. Krstulovic, Neven 191 6 191 6 11.4.4.3 (c) What is the source of the acceptable For future action. 2010.12.20
bleed limits listed in the section? Replace 11.4.4.3 - Web Ballot
(f) with:
“A grout bleed test shall be performed for horizontal

and vertical tendon grout. Grout bleeding shall be
determined per the Wick Induced Bleed as described
in the PTI guide Specification, “Specification for
Grouting of Post-Tensioned Structures”. When tested
by the Wick-induced method average bleeding for 3
test series shall not exceed 0.30% of the initial
volume of grout after 3 hours kept at rest.”
564. Kuebitz, Karl 192 16-18 192 16-18 Delete paragraph. Epoxy grout in prestressing ducts Committee note – Cannot find the 2010.12.16
is commonly and extensively used. mentioned phrase. No action Webinar
required unless the paragraph can be
Committee note – Cannot find the mentioned identified.
phrase.
Related paragraphs are as follows
and do not state that the use of
epoxy grout is commonly used.
160 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
9.4.11.5 – Epoxy grout shall have
demonstrated by tests or experience
to exhibit acceptable pumpability.
R9.4.10.3 – Past success with grout
for bonded prestressing tendons has
been with Portland cement as the
cementing material. A blanket
endorsement of all cementitious
materials (defined in Chapter 2) for
use with this grout is deemed
inappropriate because of a lack of
experience or tests with
cementitious materials other than
portland cement and a concern that
some cementitious materials might
introduce chemicals listed as harmful
to tendons in ACI 350,9.4 Section
R18.16.2. Thus, “portland cement”
in 350,9.4 Section 18.18.2.1, and
“water-cement ratio” in Section
18.18.3.3 are retained in this edition
of the Code.
Epoxy grout has been used in limited

applications. Caution is
recommended in its selection and
use. Properties of the material
should be reviewed including
differences in the coefficient of
thermal expansion and heat
generation.
565. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 192 9 173 15 This is not consistent with R10.7.1 which indicates For future action. 2010.12.20
that the inclinometers should be considered when Web Ballot
the predicted settlement values approach the See response 525.
limiting settlement values. Suggest requiring
161 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
inclinometers when the predicted settlement
exceeds ½ of the code limits and not only soil types
A and B.
566. CB&I 192 14 192 14 The reference to ACI 350/350R implies this section Change references on line 14 as 2010.10.24
refers to chemicals that are listed as harmful to follows: Pittsburgh
tendons. This section R18.6.2 in ACI 350/350R R18.16.2 R18,18.2 , and
discusses sheathing for unbonded tendons thus 18.18.2.1 18,18.1 .
appears to be the wrong reference. Update
reference accordingly.
567. CB&I 193 21-22 193 21-22 Incomplete sentence. That is, “800 psi is achieved”? Agree – change made. 2010.10.24
Pittsburgh
568. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 194 11 175 4?? During hydrotest the readings should also be taken Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
with approximately the same liquid level in the tank. Web Ballot
R10.8.2.3—Inclinometer
measurements should be made
within one week of the settlement
measurements, and preferably on
the same day. During the hydrotest,
the settlement and inclinometer
measurements should be on the
same day and with approximately
the same liquid level in the tank..
569. CB&I 194 13 194 13 Revise reference to ACI350 section 18.20.1. Agree since the intent is to reference 2010.10.24
350 where possible. Pittsburgh
Committee note - This comment is understood to
be referring to replace the phrase "ACI 318-89
section 18,18.1" with "ACI 350 section 18.20.1."
570. CB&I 194 16-17 194 16-17 Is it the intent of the authors to allow broken strands Editorial. 2010.12.16
or completely failed tendons in a structure? What is Webinar
the intent of this section? Yes, the intent is to permit up to 2%
of prestress loss due to broken or
Committee note – Replace "tendon" on page 194 unusable strand or tendons. This is
line 16 with "prestressing steel" to be consistent consistent with 1820.4 of both ACI
with ACI 318 and 350 wording. 318-05 and 350-06.
162 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
It is not uncommon to have
individual strands break or be
damaged during the stressing
operation. Replace "tendon" with
"prestressing steel" to be consistent
with ACI 318 and 350 wording.
11.4.8.2—Total loss of prestress due

to unreplaced broken tendons
prestressing steel shall not exceed
2% of total prestress.
571. Matrix Service (Gianni) 195 10 What is intended by this requirement? Clarification Add to the end of R10.8.2.1 2010.12.20
should be added to the commentary. It is desirable to conduct Web Ballot
measurements with tank contents at
Committee note – Cannot find text being discussed . approximately the same elevation.
572. CB&I 195 13 195 13 Editorial: The word “determining” is misspelled. Agree – change made. 2010.10.24
Pittsburgh
573. CB&I 195 15 195 15 Editorial: This sentence should read, “...be Agree – change made. 2010.10.24
considered early in the design.” Pittsburgh
574. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 196 2 176 12 The precise location of each load of concrete in the Withdrawn 2011.03.18
structure is not practical and should not be required. Webinar
575. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 196 5 176 14 The location of each lot of reinforcing within the Withdrawn 2011.03.18
structure is also not practical and should not be Webinar
required.
576. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 196 8 176 17 What type of mill certificate is required? Mill test No action required. 2010.12.20
reports or certificates of conformance? Web Ballot
The mill certificate generally shows
the composition of the melt.
Existing text 10.9.2.4—Mill

certificates showing conformity to
ASTM standards shall be supplied for
steel piles and other steel in the
foundation.
163 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
577. Kuebitz, Karl 196 11 196 11 Add, “Through the use of continuous electronic Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
197 force measurement and correction a more stringent Web Ballot
force tolerance is achievable.” This is not a Code requirement but
is added to the Commentary side.
R11.5.5.1—Readings of the force in

the prestressed reinforcement in-
place on the wall should be made
when the wire or strand has reached
ambient temperature. All such
readings should be made on straight
lengths of prestressed reinforcement
without deflecting the wire or
strand.
Through the use of continuous

electronic force measurement and
correction a more stringent force
tolerance is achievable. Continuous
electronic reading should be made
along the full length of the wire or
strand. Continuous electronic force
readings are usually performed in
conjunction with mechanical
prestressing methods.
See Responses 578-583

578. Kuebitz, Karl 197 2-6 197 2-6 Move second sentence beginning with “At…” to For future action. 2010.12.20
commentary and replace “one stress reading” with Web Ballot
“four stress readings”. Response 577-583.
579. Kuebitz, Karl 197 9-11 197 9-11 Move paragraph to commentary. For future action. 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
Response 577-583.
580. Kuebitz, Karl 197 7 197 7 After “written,” add “or continuous electronically Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
generated”. Web Ballot
164 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
11.5.5.1—A calibrated stress-
recording device that can be readily
recalibrated shall be used to
determine stress levels in
prestressed reinforcement
throughout the wrapping process. At
least one stress reading for every coil
of wire or strand, or for each 1000 lb
of wire or strand, or for every
vertical foot of wall per layer, shall be
taken after the prestressed
reinforcement has been applied on
the wall.
A written record or continuous

electronically generated record of
stress readings, including location
and layer, shall be maintained. This
submission shall be reviewed before
acceptance of the work.
Continuous electronic recordings

taken on the wire or strand in a
straight line between the stressing
head and the wall shall be used in
place of the above when the system
allows no loss of tension between
the reading and final placement on
the wall.
Response 577-583.
581. Kuebitz, Karl 197 12 197 12 Replace, “the” with “field die-drawn”. For future action. 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
Cannot tell where this replacement
goes as there are several “the”.
165 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Response 577-583.
582. Kuebitz, Karl 197 14 197 14 After “reinforcement,” add “without deflecting the Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
wire or strand.” Web Ballot
See Response 577.
583. Kuebitz, Karl 197 14 197 14 Add, “Continuous electronic reading should be made Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
along the full length of the wire or strand. Web Ballot
Continuous electronic force readings are usually See Response 577.
performed in conjunction with mechanical
prestressing methods.”
584. CB&I 199 10 199 10 Editorial: The word “to” is repeated twice. Agree – change made. 2010.10.24
Pittsburgh
585. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 199 15 179 8 Editorial: Should be 1.2. Agree; correct reference in line 8 is 2010.10.24
JH[same 1.2 and not 1.3. Pittsburgh
] See item 19 in April 1, 2009 email to
ACI.
586. Matrix Service 200 17 180 4 How many places and at what location are these For future action. 2010.12.20
(McGahey) tolerances to be checked in the base slab? Web Ballot
587. Matrix Service 202 16 182 5 Definition of the minimum number of intermediate For future action. 2010.12.20
(McGahey) heights to be checked should be established. Web Ballot
Recommend a minimum of approximately every 10
ft of height.
588. American Petroleum 203 8 203 8 R12.1 Revise – commissioning in all the other For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute industry standards refers to purging, cooldown and Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task product introduction. Hydrostatic and pneumatic
Group testing are just that – tests. NFPA 59A also lists them
under tests.
589. American Petroleum 205 14 205 14 12.2.3.1(e) “or protected against corrosion” is quite No action required. 2010.12.20
Institute vague. Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task Corrosion is well understood and as
Group is the protection of metal surfaces
from corrosion by coatings or other
means.
590. American Petroleum 205 21-22 205 21-22 12.2.4.1 I believe that the ACI 376 code should For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute mandate the minimum hydrotest levels that are Web Ballot
166 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Refrigerated Tank Task given in the R12.2.4.1 commentary. This should not
Group be made a contractual matter. This is a serious
deviation from accepted industry practices for RLG
tanks. Regardless of the quality of the concrete
container design and construction, the supporting
soils are always a matter of significant uncertainty.
591. CB&I 205 21 205 21 Hydrostatic testing For future action. 2010.12.20
12.2.4.1 “The contract documents must define the Web Ballot
test loads that were considered in the design.”
This would allow the contract documents to allow
no hydrostatic load test.
There MUST be a load test and this code must define
the minimum test level for the primary liquid
container.
It also must define is the secondary liquid container
requires a load test.
Paragraph R12.2.4.1 discusses test liquid heights but
is not clear at all on what should be the basis.
592. CB&I 206 18 206 18 12.2.4.4 – requires visual inspection of all surfaces Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
prior to hydrotest. Note, all surfaces may not be Web Ballot
accessible. Considering defining pertinent surface 12.2.4.4—Before hydrotesting, all
that require visual inspection. accessible surfaces that can affect
the integrity of the tank shall be
visually inspected for signs of
corrosion, pitting, or degradation
593. CB&I 207 1 207 1 12.2.4.6 – requires spray-saturated surfaces. Note Withdrawn 2011.02.18
that fill rate may limit the ability to maintain Webinar
saturated-surface-dry condition prior to test water
fill level reaching all surfaces.
594. CB&I 209 15 209 15 12.2.7 Quality of test water For future action. 2010.12.20
This section allows brackish and sea water for Web Ballot
testing. While sea water may be an acceptable
water source, does following this code’s
requirements assure that the structure will maintain
its structural integrity during service? For this
167 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
section it appears more appropriate to place the
language in a commentary paragraph.
595. American Petroleum 210 2-5 210 2-5 12.2.7 Hydrotest water quality for stainless steel Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
Institute and aluminum tanks does not belong in ACI 376 Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task since the ACI document is for concrete, not metallic Included in response 650
Group tanks. Also see Responses 596 and 601.
596. American Petroleum 210 2-5 210 2-5 12.2.7e&f Delete – do not cover metal tanks, not Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
Institute part of the scope and will create conflicts with API Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task 620. Included in response 650
Group Also see Responses 595 and 601.
597. CB&I 210 17 210 17 12.2.8 Agree. 2010.12.16
The corrosion protection requirements for steel Webinar
components are very restrictive and appear to be For future action.
pointed at a steel primary tank. It would be more
appropriate to place this information within API620 See responses 597-601, 651.
and just reference that standard here.
It is recognized that sea water is not addressed in
API620 at this time.
It is also noted that protection of a Stainless steel
pump column in a concrete tank may carry a higher
level of corrosion risk than when placed within a
primed steel tank.
598. American Petroleum 210, 18 210 18 12.2.8 (a), (b), (c) and (e) all sound like they are Agree. 2010.12.16
Institute 211 , 211 addressing metal tanks which are outside scope of Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task ACI 376. If they really are addressed to some bits of For future action.
Group metal that are part of concrete containers, then the
commentary should explain that. See responses 597-601, 651.
599. CB&I 211 2 211 2 12.2.8 – requires coating / priming of all weld seams Agree. 2010.12.16
after NDT. It is not clear what tank components are Webinar
addressed in this; however, it has not been industry For future action.
practice to coat inner tank seams and other
containment embedments. Not sure if this See responses 597-601, 651.
requirement is necessary. or justified. Needs
clarification and more appropriately placed in API
620 which addresses metal components more
168 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
thoroughly.
600. American Petroleum 211 4-10 211 4-10 12.2.8 Metallic internal pump columns are not Agree. 2010.12.16
Institute appropriately within the scope of ACI 376. These Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task are not in any way a part of a concrete container. For future action.
Group
See responses 597-601, 651.
601. CB&I 211 5 211 5 12.2.8 – states that all internal components shall be Agree. 2010.12.16
9% nickel or high nickel alloy. However, if ACI 376 Webinar
addresses storage of a broad range of refrigerated For future action.
gases and will, therefore, not require these material
in all cases and various grades of carbon steel will Also see Responses 597-601, 651.
suffice, based on product temperature.
Agree that scope of this section
should be limited to discussing
performance requirements for
corrosion protection of metal
components during hydrotest, and
that there is no need to specify
particular materials.
602. CB&I 212 16 212 16 12.2.9.2 – requires visual inspection of all tank Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
surfaces after hydrotest within 24 hours. Note that Webinar
all surfaces may not be accessible and the 24-hour Omit the time limit by changing line
timeframe may not be possible. 16 to read: " 12.2.9.2—Within 24
hours after After hydrotesting …"
603. American Petroleum 212 18-21 212 18-21 12.2.9.3 Delete. Does not belong in ACI 376 since Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
Institute the ACI document is for concrete, not metallic tanks. . Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task See response 654
Group
604. CB&I 214 6 214 6 12.3.1.3 – requires leak inspection at all openings, The method of inspection can vary 2010.12.20
penetrations and construction joints, but does not and should be required in the QA Web Ballot
define the inspection method or acceptance criteria. project specifications.
Visual inspection?
605. American Petroleum 214 7 214 7 12.3.2 Consider making Pressure and vacuum relief For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute testing simply refer to API620. Web Ballot
169 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Group
606. American Petroleum 215 7-9 215 7-9 12.3.4 Metallic internal pump columns are not For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute appropriately within the scope of ACI 376. These Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task are not in any way a part of a concrete container.
Group
607. CB&I 216 3 216 3 12.4.3 – refers to the annular ‘Perlite’ space. Since Response 607, 663. 2010.10.24
perlite insulation may not be used on all refrigerated Agree – see response 663. Pittsburgh
storage options, suggest just referring to the
“annular space” and remove reference to insulation
type.
608. CB&I 216 5 216 5 R12.4.3 Suggested Wording: 2011.02.18
The reference should be “before the dew point Webinar
temperature . . . “ R12.4.3 - Prolonged and excessive
drying of concrete should be avoided
since residual moisture enhances
concrete compressive and tensile
strengths.
609. CB&I 216 14 216 14 R12.4.5 Dew point temps For future action. 2010.12.20
API 625 provides dew points. Suggest that API625 Web Ballot
be referenced as a better source than a paper.
610. CB&I 217 1 217 1 12.4.8 This paragraph discussed the use of “liquid For future action. 2010.12.20
nitrogen as a prelude to cool-down.” Web Ballot
Use of liquid nitrogen for cool-down is not the Include with response 684.
standard method of cool-down and may damage a
tank designed for LPG or other similar gasses.
There is no paragraph covering warm product gas
purge following the nitrogen purge and prior to
introduction of product liquid which is the norm.
Introduction of product liquid directly into a pure
nitrogen environment can cause sub-cooling below
the design temperature due to the lack of a product
partial pressure.
611. American Petroleum 217, 1 217 1 Replace LNG with RLG – ACI 376 is for many Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Institute 228 , 228 products. Web Ballot
170 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Refrigerated Tank Task This is addressed in responses 684,
Group 685, 690-691, 695-699, 701-702.
612. American Petroleum 217 13 217 13 R12.5 Imposing ACI 376 (concrete code) on the For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute cooldown of metal primary tanks is inappropriate.* Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task Existing text
Group R12.5—Cool-down
Provisions also apply, however, to
tanks where the inner container is
metal, except cool down rates stated
in Chapters R12.5.4 and R12.5.7 to
R12.5.9 are tank-specific and should
reference the contract documents.
Response 612, 674.

613. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 217 17 194 13-15 Editorial: commentary for this section is missing. Editorial. No change required. 2010.12.16
JH[] 5 Add commentary from committee version to TAC Webinar
Line 5 is simply a title for a two-
column format. The first
commentary text is R11.4.8.1 (lines
13-15). This agrees with response to
TAC 617 (refer to file "attachment to
NKO email 2009.11.12).
614. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 217 22 194 11 Editorial: c) should be a separate section as in the Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
JH[same committee version. Webinar
] Change as follows:
11.4.8.1—Prestressing force shall be

determined by both of the following
Section 11.4.8 refers to both methods and then lists methods:
three. a) Measurement of tendon
elongation. Required elongation shall
be determined from average load-
elongation curves for the pre-
stressing tendons used;
171 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
b) Observation of jacking force on a
calibrated gage or load cell or by use
of a calibrated dynamometer. ; and
c) The cause of any difference in

force determination between a) and
b) that exceeds 12 % shall be
ascertained and corrected.
Item c) as written agrees with

response to TAC 617 (ref. file
"attachment to NKO email
2009.11.12).
615. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 217 22 JH[194] 11 Editorial: c) should be revised to included both pre- No change required. 2010.12.16
tensioned elements and post-tensioned elements Webinar
per the committee version sent to TAC. Accuracy of stressing for post-
tensioned systems is dealt with here,
and that for external winding is
covered in 11.5.1.
616. American Petroleum 219, 16, 8 219 16, 8 R12.5.7 & 8: The cooldown rates and maximum For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute 220 , 220 permitted temperature differentials seem to be Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task taken from metal tank criteria and might be Response, 616, 679.
Group unconservative for thick concrete walls and rigid wall
to floor joints. Suggest you talk to N. Legatos but See response 679.
inform him your walls are much thicker that his
experience.
617. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 220 8 196 16 The minimum specified cover in the completed Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
structure is one inch. Why is this statement Webinar
included in the code section? Change as follows:
Committee note - This comment is understood to 11.5.2—Anchorage of wire or strand

be referring to the last sentence in 11.5. that Each coil of prestressed wire or
discusses concrete cover over strand/wire strand shall be anchored to adjacent
anchoring clamps. wire or strand, or to the wall surface,
to prevent loss of prestress in case of
172 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
a break during wrapping. Anchoring
clamps shall be removed wherever
cover over the clamp in the
completed structure would be less
than one in..
618. American Petroleum 221 4-18 221 4-18 Section R12.5.9 provides detail flow rate, duration For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute and cooling rate. However, the cooling rate is in Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task conflict with the previous section R12.5.7. The flow See response 684 for rewrite for RLG.
Group rate 353 ft3/hr (= 10m3/hr) is a typical flow rate for
steel tanks. This flow rate is not realistic for
concrete tanks.
619. Blanchard, J. for NFPA 221 13 221 13 R.12.5.9 A cool-down rate is provided but it is For future action. 2010.12.20
59A Task Group placed in the commentary. Cool-down can cause Web Ballot
undetectable cracking in the concrete that goes See response 684 for rewrite for RLG.
beyond the assumed design basis. Limits should be
placed in the provisions paragraph.
620. CB&I 223 4 223 4 12.6.1 For future action. 2010.12.20
Why is transitional and rotational movement Web Ballot
monitoring needed? Response 620, 621.
621. CB&I 223 4 223 4 12.6.1 – requires provision of equipment to measure For future action. 2010.12.20
movement of inner tank shell (including rotational Web Ballot
movement) during and after cooldown. This has not Response 620, 621.
been a required practice for metal tanks previously
and is considered unnecessary.
622. CB&I 223 7 223 7 12.6.2 – Differential settlement needs to be Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
monitored for exceedance of the design settlement Webinar
basis. The design basis does not need to include Change as follows:
monitoring.
Recommend revised wording as follows: “The tilt 12.6.1—The tank design basis shall
and differential settlement of the LNG tank and provide equipment and
external piping shall be monitored to confirm that instrumentation for the
settlement is within allowable limits.” measurement and recording of
translational and rotational
movement of the inner vessel for use
173 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
during and after cool-down.
12.6.2—The tank design basis shall
include LNG tank tilt settlement and
differential
settlement monitoring between of
the LNG tank and external piping
shall be monitored to confirm that
settlement is
within allowable limits.
623. American Petroleum 223 16 223 16 12.6.5 Revise “design professional” or define. For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute Engineer is defined. Web Ballot
Group
624. CB&I 223 21 223 21 A structural design standard should not instruct an For future action. 2010.12.20
owner how to operate his tank. Web Ballot
All provisions and comments in this section should
be restricted to instruments that are necessary to
maintain the tank design basis. Suggest that this
section refer to API625.
625. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 223 22 199 16 Editorial: “Slipforming operations involves a large Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
JH[same number of people on in a limited amount of …” Webinar
] R11.6.2.3—Slipforming operations
involve a large number of people on
in a limited amount of space,
working at different levels
simultaneously.
626. American Petroleum 224 1 224 1 12 7.1 Revise to “…top and bottom fill nozzles for Withdrawn 2011.02.18
Institute terminal LNG tanks shall be required.” No need for Webinar
Refrigerated Tank Task bottom fill at LNG base plants or for other products.
Group
627. Blanchard, J. for NFPA 224 1 224 1 12.7.1 Other methods such as recirculation may be Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
59A Task Group used to avoid stratification. Also, tank stratification Web Ballot
is not normally a problem for “pure products” such R12.7.1—The choice of top or
as Propylene, Ammonia and Ethylene. The bottom fill is based on the density of
requirement for top and bottom fill nozzles appears the liquid currently in the tank as
174 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
too restrictive.. compared with the liquid being
added.
Rollover is a problem regardless

whether the tank is at a producing
location or a receiving location, thus
providing both top and bottom fill
nozzles should be considered in all
tanks. Operators of terminal LNG
tanks may want to use a bottom fill
to introduce product below the
surface to minimize boil off gas
production.
The operators may also want to

recirculate the tank to reduce
stratification and to provide a more
uniform product to the transport.
Recirculation is hard to achieve
without both top and bottom fill
nozzles. Tank stratification is not
normally a problem for Propylene,
Ammonia and Ethylene.
628. American Petroleum 224 20 224 20 12.8 The decommissioning section is outside the For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute scope described in 1.1 (“design and construction…”) Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task It seems like it ought to be in an appendix or
Group separate document.
629. Blanchard, J. for NFPA 224 20 224 20 12.8 There should be more discussion regarding Agree. 2010.12.16
59A Task Group safety and maintaining a safe environment for tank Webinar
entry. Proposed wording change in
Concrete may outgas following initially reached safe response 632 addresses this
levels. Reentry may be dangerous. comment.

630. CB&I 224 20 224 20 This section makes many references to LNG and For future action. 2010.12.20
175 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Methane. This Code applies to many more gasses Web Ballot
than Methane and this section should reflect that. Agree.
This is addressed in response 684,

685, 690-691, 695-699, 701-702.
631. CB&I 224 20 224 20 There should be more discussion regarding safety For future action. 2010.12.20
and maintaining a safe environment for tank entry. Web Ballot
Concrete may outgas following initially reaching safe Agree.
levels. Reentry may be dangerous.
See response 629
632. Matrix Service 227 23 203 10 Decommissioning also includes bringing the tank Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
(Oberman) back to conditions where the tank can be entered. Webinar
Suggested rewording: “Decommissioning” denotes R12.1—Scope
the purging of the tank out of service, the The term “Commissioning” is used in
subsequent warm-up and the introduction of air.” this Chapter to denote the tests
(hydrostatic and pneumatic) that
must be conducted before placing
the tank into service; plus the start-
up procedures, such as purging into
service and cool-down.
“Decommissioning” denotes the
purging of the tank out of service,
and the subsequent warm-up and
the introduction of air.
633. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 228 22 204 9 Editorial: Suggested rewording: “The provisions of Agree. 2010.10.24
JH[same this Chapter 12.2 section apply for hydrostatic Pittsburgh
] testing, commonly called….”
634. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 229 4 204 13 The requirement for hydrotesting the secondary Withdrawn 2011.03.18
containment needs to be more definitive in the code Webinar
section. Suggested rewording: “Hydrotesting of the
secondary containment is not customary required.
R12.2.1 If specified in the contract documents that
the secondary containment is to be hydrotested but
the provisions of Chapter 12.2 are also applicable.
for testing the secondary
176 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
containment when it is required.
635. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 230 3 205 11 Any reinforcement tests should be completed and Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
approved before concrete placement. Suggested Webinar
revision: “Concrete and reinforcement tests are 12.2.3.1—Hydrostatic testing shall
completed.” not be performed before:
a) Concrete materials have reached
specified strength and age;
b) Prestressing installation, grouting
and, if specified, concrete protection
is completed;
c) Concrete quality assurance and
reinforcement tests are completed;
d) Inspection and testing of welded
joints of metal liners, penetrations,
and piping is
completed; and
e) Metal surfaces are coated or
protected against corrosion from test
water.
636. American Petroleum 230- 5 230 5 Appendix A Consider deleting these figures since For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute 240 -240 these integrated concept figures more properly fit in Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task the scope of API 625. Instead refer to API 625
Group (which contains better quality color figures) for the
storage concept figures and in ACI 376 concentrate
on the distinctives and details of concrete
containers.
637. CB&I 230 5 230 5 Tank configurations For future action. 2010.12.20
This standard should reference API625 for tank Web Ballot
configurations.
Any configurations not shown in API625 can be
added there.
Definitions for single, double and full containment
are much more complete in API625
638. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 230 6 205 14 This item implies that all metal surfaces are Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
protected in some manner. Unless test water is not Webinar
177 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
potable metal surfaces typically do not need to be 12.2.3.1—Hydrostatic testing shall
coated. Suggested revision: “If required, corrosion not be performed before:
protection of metal surface is complete.” a) Concrete materials have reached
specified strength and age;
b) Prestressing installation, grouting
and, if specified, concrete protection
is completed;
c) Concrete and reinforcement tests
are completed;
d) Inspection and testing of welded
joints of metal liners, penetrations,
and piping is completed; and
e) Metal surfaces are coated or
protected against corrosion from test
water. Corrosion protection of
metal surfaces, if required, is
complete.
639. American Petroleum 230 7 230 7 A.1 & A.2 Appendix A appears to be presented as Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Institute code rather than commentary. It should be Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task commentary (i.e. RA.1, and RA.2) and be introduced A.1— RA.1—Tank configurations
Group as “examples” or “some variants” of the storage Figures A.1 RA.1 through A.5 RA.5
concepts. We don’t want such illustrations to illustrate are examples of single,
preclude other possible variations. “Examples” is double, and full containment
what they are called in EN 1473 from which the concepts covered by this Code
figures were adapted. (adapted from BS EN 1473).
A.2— RA.2—Full containment tanks:

typical details
Figures A.6 and A.7 RA.6 and RA.7
illustrate typical details for full
containment LNG tanks with steel
and concrete primary containers.
All figure numbers will be changed

to reflect the “R” designation.
178 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
See responses 641, 642, 643, 644,

647, and 648.
640. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 230 17 206 1 This first paragraph discusses load conditions Disagree. 2010.12.16
previously defined in Chapter 5. Recommend Webinar
deleting this paragraph which is not relative to No action required.
commissioning and begin R12.2.4.1 with the second
paragraph.
641. Legatos, Nicholas A. 231- 1 231 1 Fig. A.1(a) and A.1(b) are mislabeled and in fact For future action. 2010.12.20
240 -240 incorrect. For example, they are both titled “Single- Web Ballot
containment tank system” while actually showing a See responses 639, 642, 643, 644,
single-containment on one side of the tank cross 647, and 648.
section and a full-containment on the other.
Fig. A.2(a) through A.3(b) are correct but

insufficiently titled. This is because, although the
titles are accurate, they do not clearly identify the
difference between A.2(a) & A.2(b) on one hand and
A.3(a) & A.3(b) on the other (metal primary
container in the former pair vs. concrete primary
container in the latter).
Moreover, the whole grouping of the figures is

inconsistent, with some of them paired up on one
page and others occupying single pages.
Attached is a set of correct figures, titled and

arranged in a more logical method. [PDF Files LNG
1, LNG2, LNG 3, LNG4, and LNG5]. These are
updated versions of the figures prepared by the
writer for the original draft of the ACI 376
document.
These figures are also available in AutoCAD format.

642. Krstulovic, Neven 231- 1 231 1 Fig. A.1(a) through A.5(b) Modify the figures to For future action. 2010.12.20
179 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
240 -240 clarify the intent. Show the OUTSIDE container Web Ballot
made of steel in both side (a) and (b) of Figure A.1. See responses 639, 641, 643, 644,
Change legend to state: 647, and 648.
“Outer tank shall typically be made of steel”

643. American Petroleum 231- 1 231 1 Appendix A Section 6.2 - specifies requirements for For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute 240 -240 primary container, and sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.6 Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task makes reference to concrete base. However, See responses 639, 641, 642, 644,
Group Appendix A does not provide any example that 647, and 648.
includes “concrete base” used as part of the primary
container. Looking at the figures, it appears that
steel plate is on top of base insulation.
644. American Petroleum 231 1-3 231 1-3 Fig A.1(a) and (b) right half It does not make sense For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute to show three concrete walls (two are full height) in Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task a single containment tank system. That’s never been See responses 639, 641, 642, 643,
Group built and would never make sense to build. Who 647, and 648.
would build an outer full height concrete wall that
contains the vapor that would not be designed to
hold spilled liquid?
645. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 231 13 209 9 This wording seems to apply to the inspection of a Disagree. 2010.12.16
metal component not a concrete component. Webinar
Suggest deleting or rewording. No action required.
Committee note - This comment is understood to Committee note - This comment is

be referring to section title: "12.2.6 – Anchorage." understood to be referring to "12.2.6
– Anchorage." Assuming the
comment is referring to line 9 that
discusses "tightening of individual
anchors," some concrete tank
designs being considered do use
individual anchors that would
require tightening; see C3T brochure
for example.
646. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 232 1 209 16 This paragraph assumes that the tank will be See response 650. 2010.12.16
hydrotested with seawater but this may not be the Webinar
180 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
case. Suggested rewording: “If the primary container
is to be tested with non-potable water such as
brackish water or seawater, all surfaces of the
primary concrete tank exposed to seawater the test
water shall be spray saturated to a saturated surface
dry condition using fresh potable water immediately
before the hydrotest.
647. American Petroleum 232, 1, 1 232, 1, 1 Figure A.1(b) and A.5(b) The right half section of For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute 240 240 Single Containment example A.1(b) appears to be Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task more stringent (3 concrete walls) than Full See responses 639, 641, 642, 643,
Group Containment example A.5(b) (2 concrete walls). 644, and 648.
648. American Petroleum 232, 1 232 1 Figures A.1(b), A.3(a), A.3(b), A.5(a), and A.5(b) For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute 235, , 235, These figures show concrete wall as primary Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task 236, 236, container and the bottom annular insulation under See responses 639, 641, 642, 643,
Group 239, 239, the concrete primary container is “Bottom rigid 644, and 647.
240, 240, insulation”. In Figure A.7(a) it shows “BALSA BLOCK
243 243 FOOTING with RADIAL SHEAR BARS”.
This annular insulation is essential to support all the

loads from the concrete primary container including
dead weight, seismic loads, etc.
Annular insulation system for conventional LNG
tanks (9%Ni tanks) consists of concrete ring beam
and foamglass insulation as shown in Figure A.6(c).
However, due to the fact that the total weight of the
concrete primary container wall is estimated to be
more than 10 times heavier than that of a 9%Ni
primary container shell, it is not possible to use
foamglass.
Typically, materials that have higher strength will

have higher density and higher thermal conductivity.
Therefore, it may be a challenge to select a material
that has enough compressive strength (with a
certain safety factor) and low thermal conductivity
181 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
to prevent frost heave at the same time.
649. Matrix Service 232 20 207 18 Reviewing ACI 228.2R it is not clear which NDE test For future action. 2010.12.20
(McGahey) would be used to check for liquid tightness. As Web Ballot
discussed in R12.2.5.2 each test has its strengths.
Committee should provide direction as to which test
or tests need to be performed to verify leak
tightness.
650. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 235 2 209 17 This code should not provide guidance on metal Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
tanks. Delete metal containers from this line. Webinar
Also see Response 646 and 654.
12.2.7—Quality of test water

The test water shall be clean, and
may include suitable corrosion
inhibitors. Use of clean seawater for
hydrotesting of primary lined or
unlined concrete or metal containers
is permitted, but at a minimum the
following criteria shall be met
whether using potable, brackish, or
seawater for the hydrotest:
651. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 236 9 211 2,3 The code should only require that the engineer Agree. 2010.12.16
8, determine if corrosion protection of metallic Webinar
11, components is required and to define those For future action.
12, requirements. Tanks have been successfully
17 hydrotested with seawater without providing them See responses 597-601, 651.
with a coating.
652. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 237 13 212 5 Previously it is stated that the hydrotest shall not Suggested Wording 2011.03.18
exceed 30 days but in this section the hydrotest may Webinar
be extended to consolidate the soil. Given the R.12.2.8 3rd paragraph
critical nature of these tanks and the unpredictable “If hydrotest water is left in the tank
behavior of soil this code should not suggest that for an extended period, the Engineer
consolidation of the soil could be accomplished by should make special provisions to
the hydrotest. Suggest deleting this paragraph. minimize corrosion.”
182 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
We should not suggest that using the
hydrotest to consolidate soil under
an insulated tank is an idea to
consider.
653. Matrix Service 237 21 212 13 The code needs to address Microbiologically For future action. 2010.12.20
(McGahey) Induced Corrosion (MIC) as a potential source of Web Ballot
corrosion and steps to take to mitigate risk from
MIC.
654. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 238 7 212 18 Delete reference to metal tanks. “12.2.9.3 – For Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.16
metal tanks , or metal components of concrete Webinar
tanks. Also see Response 603.
Change as follows:
12.2.9.3—For metal tanks, or metal

components of concrete tanks, the
The entire surface of …" The reason
being that the provision is not
dependent on whether the tank is
constructed of metal or concrete.
655. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 238 15 213 1 The 250 ppm is less strict than the quality of the For future action. 2010.12.20
water required in 12.2.7 (e) which is 50 ppm and is Web Ballot
also the requirement of API 620 App. Q.
656. Matrix Service 238 19 213 5 It is assumed that this requirement is for concrete Agree. Editorial 2011.02.18
(McGahey) tanks only. Provide commentary describing what is Webinar
trying to be removed and what an inspection after 12.2.9.6—All surfaces of the inner
brush scrubbing should look for. concrete tank walls and floor tested
with brackish or seawater shall be
brush-scrubbed after the initial high-
pressure spray wash to remove any
salt accumulations. A second high-
pressure rinse with potable water
shall be applied after the brushing
operation.
657. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 239 2 213 7 The engineer should be notified before the Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
183 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
settlement limits are exceeded. Suggested Web Ballot
rewording: “When settlement monitoring 12.2.10—Tank foundations shall be
determines that the measured settlements exceeds monitored and recorded for
75% of the predefined predicted values the Engineer settlement before, during, and after
shall be notified immediately.” the hydrotest as per Chapter 10 of
this Code. When settlement
monitoring determines that the
measured settlements exceeds 75%
of the exceeds predefined values,
the Engineer shall be notified
immediately.
658. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 239 5 213 10 R12.2.10 is covered in Section 10.7.1, suggest For future action. 2010.12.20
removing from this section. Web Ballot
Agree that R12.2.10 does not belong
Committee note – Combine this with comment 560. here. However it does not appear to
be covered by 10.7.1 and related
sections. Suggest moving from here
and incorporating into appropriate
sections in Ch. 10.
659. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 239 22 214 3 The test pressure could be air or nitrogen. Agree. Revise as suggested. 2010.10.24
Suggested rewording: “An air test pressure of 1.25 Pittsburgh
times….”
660. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 240 1 214 5 Suggested rewording: “The test pressure to the Agree. Revise as suggested. 2010.10.24
vapor space design pressure shall then be reduced Pittsburgh
to the tank design pressure and inspection …..”
661. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 240 7 214 10 Editorial: “with alarm settings to guard against Agree. Revise as suggested. 2010.10.24
JH[same pressure/vacuum conditions to prevent excess Pittsburgh
] pressure or vacuum conditions.
662. American Petroleum 242 1 242 1 Fig. A.6 (b) Revise perlite (yellow) to not extend For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute horizontally past extension of inner tank shell. Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task Overhang is dangerous. Perlite in LNG requires filters See responses 639, 641, 642, 643,
Group for removal. See Fig. A-7(a) 644, 647 and 648.
663. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 242 4 216 3 For RLG tanks the annular space may not be filled Response 607, 663. 2010.10.24
with perlite. Suggest deleting perlite and just refer Agree. Delete the word "Perlite" in Pittsburgh
to the annular space. line 3.
184 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
664. Matrix Service 242 5 216 4 There should not be any standing water at the start Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
(McGahey) of the purging or the tank. This should be required Web Ballot
before the start of the purging procedure. 12.4.2—Before beginning the
purging operation, a complete
Also is the 8% limit conservative for all RLG? purging procedure shall be
Recommend defining the limit in generic terms as a developed including the following:
property of the gas. a) Nitrogen purge gas quality
specifications and source of supply;
b) Identification of piping
connections;
c) Preparation and approval of
equipment and instrumentation,
including the stepwise position
(open/closed) of all valves required
to isolate and purge the tank; and
d) Assignment and duties of
operation and supervisory
personnel; and
e) Removal of all standing water
and dried.
The oxygen comment is for future

action.
See oxygen limit responses 667, and

671.
665. Matrix Service 242 7 216 5 What temperature is being referred to in this section Suggested Wording: 2011.02.18
(Oberman) and how does the commentary relate to the code Webinar
section? R12.4.3 - Prolonged and excessive
drying of concrete should be avoided
since residual moisture enhances
concrete compressive and tensile
strengths.
666. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 242 10 216 8, 10 For RLG tanks the annular space may not be filled Agree that this should be changed to 2010.10.24
185 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
with perlite. Suggest deleting perlite and just refer annular space. Pittsburgh
to the annular space. Adjust wording in R12.4.4 as
well. Delete the word "Perlite" in lines 8
and 10.
667. Matrix Service 242 15 216 11 Refer to previous comment on oxygen limit. For future action. 2010.12.20
(McGahey) Web Ballot
See Response 664 and 671.
668. American Petroleum 243 1 243 1 Figure A.7(a) A layer of Teflon/Fiberglass sheet is For future action. 2010.12.20
Institute laid under both the inner wall and outer wall. This Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task may reduce the friction factor to accommodate the See responses 639, 641, 642, 643,
Group thermal movement of the wall. However, this will 644, 647 and 648.
also affect the sliding resistance against the
horizontal seismic acceleration, which is required in
section 6.2.5 and 10.3.4.
669. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 243 1 243 1 (a) Detail at roof: The detail clearly shows steel For future action. 2010.12.20
Team framing supporting the roof. This steel framing, Web Ballot
combined with the concrete overlay creates a See responses 639, 641, 642, 643,
composite section, and there is no guidance or 644, 647, 648 and 668
reference in this code for how to design the
composite section. ANSI/AISC 360-05 Specification
for Structural Steel Buildings, Chapter I, provides
specifications for design of composite members, and
therefore it should be included within the
referenced standards in Chapter 3 of this document.
670. Kuebitz, Karl 243 1 243 1 Fig (a) and (b) Replace “(or strands)” with “or Agree. Parentheses will be removed. 2010.10.24
strands.” Parentheses are not needed. Pittsburgh
671. Matrix Service 243 2 216 19 Refer to previous comment on oxygen limit. For future action. 2010.12.20
(McGahey) Web Ballot
See Response 664 and 667.
672. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 243 4 216 21 The purge of the tank may need to be held for an Committee response 2011.03.18
extended period if the remainder of the facility is Webinar
not complete. 12.4.7—If the entire purging
operation is to be accomplished with
warm nitrogen, advanced
preparations shall be made to begin
186 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
cool-down immediately after the
oxygen and dew point target values
are reached. If cool down of the tank
cannot begin immediately the tank
shall be maintained in a purged state
until cool down can begin.
673. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 243 19 217 11 Editorial: “apply when when the…” Agree 2010.10.24
JH[same Pittsburgh
]
674. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 244 1 217 11 If the commissioning section covers only concrete No action required. 2010.12.20
tanks why is this sentence included here? Web Ballot
This statement insures that there is
no confusion on the cool-down.
See Response 612.

675. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 244 19 217 19 Editorial: replace LNG with RLG. Agree 2010.10.24
JH[same Pittsburgh
]
JH[same Pittsburgh
]
677. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 245 19 219 4 A cooldown ring may not be required for all RLG. Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
Warmer products do not require cooldown rings. Web Ballot
R12.5.5—One of the main objectives
of a controlled cool-down for a
concrete and metal inner tank is to
maintain the temperature gradients
across the wall thickness and along
the wall height to predetermined
levels so as to minimize thermal
stresses.
A cooldown ring may not be

required for all RLG. Warmer
products do not require cooldown
187 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
rings.
678. Matrix Service (Hoptay) 246 1 219 6 Remove reference to metal inner tank. When Agree. Delete " and metal" from end 2010.10.24
cooling down a metal tank the through thickness of line 6 on page 219. Pittsburgh
gradients in is not a concern as indicated in this
sentence.
679. Matrix Service 246 14 219 16 Are these typical rates for a concrete primary No action required. 2010.12.20
(McGahey) container? These are typical rates experienced for Web Ballot
steel inner tanks. This question has been addressed
previously.
See Response, 616.

680. Legatos, Nicholas A. 247 1 247 1 Fig, A.10 is missing the legend that goes with the Missing legend has been corrected. 2010.10.24
numerical markings. Pittsburgh
Attached is a complete figure including the legend
[PDF File LNG*].
681. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 247 18 220 17-21 Editorial: It appears that this is a repeat of 12.5.8. Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
JH[same Delete 12.5.8.2. Web Ballot
] 12.5.8—The maximum permitted
temperature difference between any
two temperature sensors shall be
maintained within prescribed ranges
specified in the contract documents.
The maximum permitted

temperature differences shall be
measured between:
a) The inner and outer face of the
inner tank;
b) Any two points along a vertical
line on the inside face of the wall;
c) Any two points at the same
elevation on the inner wall face; and
d) Wall and floor.
682. Matrix Service 248 1 221 1 Pressure and temperature readings should also be Agree. Editorial 2010.12.16
(McGahey) recorded. Suggested rewording: “Pressure and Webinar
188 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
temperature readings shall be recorded, monitored 12.5.9—Pressure and temperature
and controlled continuously to…” readings shall be recorded,
monitored and controlled
continuously to ensure that the
limiting thermal gradients,
acceptable to the future tank
performance defined in Chapter 6,
are not exceeded.
683. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 248 8,9,1 221 7, 8, Editorial: replace LNG with RLG. Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
7 JH[same 16, 21 Web Ballot
] Response 683, 684, 686. 688.
See response 684.
684. Matrix Service 248 8-16 221 4-18 This data is for an LNG tank and possibly for a steel For future action. 2010.12.20
(Oberman) inner tank and specific cooldown ring. Since this Web Ballot
code covers all RLG then specific values such as Response 683, 684, 686. 688; also
these could be misleading without a frame of 618, 619.
reference. Guidelines for determining the flow and Pg. 221 lines 4-18 & pg. 222 lines 1-
cooldown rate should be given not specifics. 22 are specific to LNG. Agree that
this should be rewritten to address
RLG.
685. Matrix Service 248 22 221 20 Pressure value for these small pressures should be Agree. Editorial 2010.12.16
(McGahey) defined by inches of water. Suggested rewording: Webinar
“shall be less than 5.0 inches of water (12.5 Mbar). Also see response 694.
12.5.10—Maximum pressure
differential between the annulus and
inner tank shall be no more than 13
mbar 5.0 inches of water (12.5
Mbar) with the inner tank always at
a higher pressure.
686. Matrix Service 249 3-22 222 1-22 Why are requirements related to LNG and not RLG? Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
(Oberman) Revise for RLG. Web Ballot
Response 683, 684, and 688.
See response 684.
687. Conlon, John F. 249 3-7 249 3-7 Appendix B Scope—the status and relevance of ACI Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
189 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
357 (Fixed Offshore Concrete Structures) to the Web Ballot
scope of this draft is not addressed. It needs to be. B.1—Scope
In line 6, suggest changing ‘350’ to ‘357’ as a good 4 The requirements in this Appendix
start to fix the omission. are intended to supplement the
general requirements for reinforced
concrete and prestressed concrete
design and construction given in ACI
318, ACI 350, ACI 301, ACI 357, other
National and International Codes,
and this Code. This appendix focuses
on gravity-based (GBS), and floating,
concrete offshore LNG terminals.
Offshore LNG terminals can be fixed
(including gravity base structures
(GBS) and pile-founded) or floating
structures (including floating storage
units (FSU), floating storage and
regasification units (FSRU), and0
buoys for custom carrier vessels),
and can be built from either concrete
or steel.
688. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 249 1 222 2, 5 , Editorial: replace LNG with RLG. Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
JH[same 6, 18 Web Ballot
] Response 683, 684, 686 and 688.
See response 684.
689. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 249 1 249 1 Text in red is what is contained in Chevron response For future action. 2010.12.20
Team "2E_Chevron verify_2010 04 20 -376 Public Web Ballot
Comments Compiled to Chair - Update 5-14-10.doc"
received May 24, 2010
a. Sliding of GBS is not addressed. Do safety

factors in Section 10.3.4 against sliding also
apply to GBS? In moderate to high seismic
zones it may be difficult to design for no
sliding for the SSE.
190 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
b. Does this appendix apply to all types of
tanks, SPB, membrane? If so some specific
requirements to membrane tanks are
necessary
c. Sliding of GBS is not addressed. Do safety
factors in Section 10.3.4 against sliding also
apply to GBS? In moderate to high seismic
zones it may be difficult to design for no
sliding for the SSE.
d. Does this appendix apply to all types of
tanks, SPB, membrane? If so some specific
requirements to membrane tanks are
necessary.
e. Section B.3.1.2.1 defines SSE as 4975 return
period. This is not consistent with NFPA59A
and criteria for onshore tanks.
f. Section B.5.1.3 Global seismic analysis of
the GBS is very complicated. Dynamic
analysis using response spectrum method
should not be allowed except for
preliminary calculations. The detailed
global analysis must include soil-structure
interaction effects. GBS base slab and wall
flexibility should be modeled.
g. Section B.5.1.8—“If time-history analysis is
used, at least three sets of ground motion
time histories shall be applied” Which set
of results shall be used? Maximum or
average response?
690. Matrix Service 250 1-3 223 21 Why are requirements related to LNG and not RLG? Agree that this should be changed to 2010.10.24
(Oberman) Revise for RLG. RLG. Pittsburgh
Committee note - This comment is understood to Editorial, also, change line 22 to

be referring to section title: "12.7 – LNG tank fill read:
methods." "The provisions of this Chapter 12.7
191 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
section shall apply when …"
691. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 250 13,14 223 7, 8 Editorial: replace LNG with RLG. Agree 2010.10.24
JH[same Pittsburgh
]
692. Matrix Service 251 4 223 18 This visual inspection may only identify large voids in For future action. 2010.12.20
(Oberman) the insulation since the thermal mass of the Web Ballot
concrete secondary container may mask the cold
spot unlike a steel outer tank. It may be necessary
to perform a thermal scan of the wall if this
inspection is to be meaningful. If voids are
determined to be present how will the voids be
filled?
Committee note - This comment is understood to

be referring to section title: "12.6.6—The tank
shall be inspected for cold spots where insulation
may have formed air pockets in the vertical side
walls."
693. Conlon, John F. 251 18 251 18 Replace ‘National Regulatory’ with Cognizant Agree that "National Regulatory" 2010.10.24
Regulatory’ Body. should be changed. To be consistent Pittsburgh
with similar wording throughout the
document change line 18 to read:
"b) The approval from National
Regulatory regulatory agencies and
Owner’s requirements."
694. Matrix Service 252 2 224 11 Pressure value for these small pressures should be Agree. Editorial 2010.12.16
(McGahey) defined by inches of water. Suggested rewording: Webinar
“shall be less than 5.0 inches of water (12.5 Mbar). See response 685.
.
JH[same Pittsburgh
]
696. Conlon, John F. 254 3 254 3 The correct spelling is ‘Morison’s. Agree 2010.10.24
Pittsburgh
697. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 254 16 226 16, Editorial: replace methane with product gas? Agree 2010.10.24
192 of 201 update 2011.03.24
Name Approved by
quorum vote
JH[same 21, 23 Pittsburgh
]
698. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 255 9 227 10 Editorial: replace methane with product gas? Agree 2010.10.24
JH[same Pittsburgh
]
699. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 255 4,13, 227 8, 17, Editorial: replace LNG with RLG. Agree 2010.10.24
&17 JH[same 20 Pittsburgh
]
700. American Petroleum 255 13, 14 255 13, 14 Appendix B provides design criteria for offshore Disagree. 2010.12.20
Institute units (concrete GBS or floating hulls) and refers to Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task the requirements of NFPA 59A. It is not appropriate B.3.1.2.1 deals only with the seismic
Group for B.3.1.2.1 to make reference to NFPA 59A (7.3.2), requirements in NFPA 59A. The
since this is for land based field erected containers offshore platforms for LNG/RLG
have similar tankage to onshore
facilities and the criteria is
appropriate to both.
701. ACI 376 (Hoptay) 256 5 228 5, 21 Editorial: replace LNG with RLG. Agree 2010.10.24
JH[same Pittsburgh
]
JH[same Pittsburgh
]
703. Conlon, John F. 257 7 257 13 suggest that: mooring loads should be categorized Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
as ‘live loads’. Web Ballot
B.3.3.1—Permanent loads
The functional permanent loads shall
include the following:
a) Self-weight of the structure;
b) Weight of permanent ballast;
c) Weight of permanently topside
facilities including riser, etc.;
d) External hydrostatic pressure up
to the mean water level;
e) Temporary, or permanent,
mooring loads for floating
193 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
structures; and
14 f) Deformation loads.
B.3.3.2—Live loads
The functional live loads shall include
the following:
a) Personnel;
b) Removable modules or topside
facilities during the operation phase;
c) Uniformly distributed loads or
concentrate loads in storage area;
d) Liquid content and pressure in
storage compartments (for
ballasting), ordinary boat impact,
fendering, and vessel mooring to the
structure; and
e) sloshing loads in both floating
and fixed structures; and
e) f) Loads occurring during
construction, inshore and offshore
towing, and offshore installation.
704. Conlon, John F. 257 7 257 13 e) mooring loads for vessels moored to the Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
structure; and for a floating RLG structure, Web Ballot
temporary and permanent anchor line loads See response to 703.
maintaining the structure onsite.
705. Conlon, John F. 258 2 258 2 Suggest in item (d) mention be made of liquid Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
sloshing in floating structure. Web Ballot
See response to 703.
706. Conlon, John F. 259 8-11 259 8-11 The application of B.3.4.2 is unclear. Presumably the No action required. 2010.12.20
mentioned probability values are ‘per annum’. Web Ballot
The probability values are “always”
per annum unless otherwise stated.
707. Conlon, John F. 262 2 262 2 Delete wording after ‘…containment.’ No action required. 2010.12.20
Web Ballot
This a correct statement..
194 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
708. Conlon, John F. 271 7 271 7 In B.8.4.3, suggest that mention be made of ‘air gap’ Agree. Editorial 2010.12.20
to avoid overhead obstructions Web Ballot
B.8.4.3—The clearance between the
bottom of the GBS or floating hull
and seabed shall meet the marine
operation requirements as
specified in the applicable marine
operation design codes, rules, and/or
set by the Marine Warranty
Surveyor.
If portions of the towing are in

inland or near-shore waters,
adequate clearance between the
top of the structure and the
underside of any bridges shall be
specified.
709. Conlon, John F. 272 15-17 272 15-17 In B.8.5 Moorings, possible confusion in For future action. 2010.12.20
terminology. Text refers to tow arrangements (tow Web Ballot
lines and fittings) not moorings. The subject of
permanent moorings of a floating terminal structure
was not found in the draft standard.
710. Conlon, John F. 274 16 274 16 In B.9—‘Decommissioning’ here implies removal of For future action. 2010.12.20
the structure. Earlier in section 12.8, Web Ballot
decommissioning addressed purging out of service
and warm-up. The latter is appropriate; the former
may not be. See also ‘Weaknesses’ below, item 3.
711. Conlon, John F. 276 4 276 4 Cannot locate “reference B.8” Agree; change line 4 to read: 2010.10.24
"… in Ref. B.8" ISO 19903." Pittsburgh
ACI.
712. American Petroleum 280 17 280 17 Appendix C provides guidance on fatigue résistance. No action required. 2010.12.20
Institute It is noted in section C1 that it focuses principally on Web Ballot
Refrigerated Tank Task offshore facility, however same requirements also Agree.
Group applies to onshore facilities. While fatigue
195 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
resistance criteria furnished for off-shore facility
appears to be a good guidance, this is not required
for on-shore facility.
713. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 255 17 255 17 Comment added in Chevron response Response spectrum is site specific. 2010.10.24
new Team "2E_Chevron verify_2010 04 20 -376 Public Therefore, there is no inconsistency Pittsburgh
Comments Compiled to Chair - Update 5- between Chapter 5 (2475 years) and
Appendix B (4975 years).
14-10.doc" received May 24, 2010
Section B.3.1.2.1 defines SSE as 4975 return
period. This is not consistent with NFPA59A
and criteria for onshore tanks.
714. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 264 1 264 1 Comment added in Chevron response Agree 2010.10.04
new Team 263 4 "2E_Chevron verify_2010 04 20 -376 Public Webinar
Comments Compiled to Chair - Update 5-
Section B.5.1.3 Global seismic analysis of
the GBS is very complicated. Dynamic
analysis using response spectrum method
should not be allowed except for
preliminary calculations. The detailed
global analysis must include soil-structure
interaction effects. GBS base slab and wall
flexibility should be modeled.
715. Hoang, Kim for Chevron 265 4 265 4 Comment added in Chevron response Editorial. For future action. 2010.10.24
new Team "2E_Chevron verify_2010 04 20 -376 Public Pittsburgh
Comments Compiled to Chair - Update 5-
Section B.5.1.8—“If time-history analysis is
used, at least three sets of ground motion
time histories shall be applied” Which set
of results shall be used? Maximum or
196 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
average response?
716. Pawski, R. 168 15 Change reference 4.1.5.9 to 6.6.5.9 at end of line 15. Agree 2010.10.04
new J.B. April 1, 2010 email This is not addressed elsewhere; see email item 18 Webinar
response. ADD GH CHANGES
717. Pawski, R. 121 22 Delete superscript at end of sentence: "… (refer to Agree 2010.10.04
new ACI 349, Appendix C, Eq. (C.7)6.14)." Webinar
718. Pawski, R. 222 22 Change reference R10.5.9 to R12.5.9. Agree 2010.10.04
response.
719. Pawski, R. 277 18 Change reference R3.1.5.10 to R6.6.5.10. Agree 2010.10.04
response.
720. Pawski, R. 283 21 Change reference C.7.3 and C.7.4 to C.3.3 and C.3.4. Agree 2010.10.04
response.
721. Pawski, R. 108 1-8 The 8.1.1.8 on page 59108 is missing, and it appears Agree 2010.10.04
new J.B. April 1, 2010 email two paragraphs are reversed; see TAC review PDF Webinar
page 129 line 17 to page 130 line 3, and Response
411 that clarifies R6.1.1.7 should be 6.1.1.8 (now
8.1.1.8). To fix the two paragraphs on Page 59108
after 8.1.1.7 should read as follows:
quote
8.1.1.8— The cracking analysis shall be based on a
Finite Element Method that (1) uses recognized or
codified constitutive models for the stress strain
behavior of concrete, and (2) incorporates tension-
stiffening effects. When calculating calculated
crack widths the tension stiffening term shall not
be deducted from the calculation where tension
stiffening is explicitly included in the analysis.
Additionally the calculated crack widths shall be
calculated as characteristic and not mean
197 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
Unless otherwise specified, the concrete

constitutive mode from European Code shall be
used for determining calculated crack widths.
unquote
722. Hoff, G.. 28 15 New: Make the following corrections to Section 2.3: Agree 2010.10.04
new 2010.09.26 review 1..CPT cone penetration test, Chapter 8 10 Webinar
comments 2..DLE ductility level earthquake, 3, 5, Appendix B
3..MCE maximum considered earthquake, Chapter 3
5
4..NFPA National Fire Protection Association NFPA,
4, 5, 6, 10, Appendix B
5..NSR notch sensitivity ratio, Chapter 3 4
6..OBE operating basis earthquake, Chapters 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, Appendix B
7..PCPT piezometric cone penetration test, Chapter
9 10
8..QRA quality risk analysis, Chapter 4 5
9..SLE strength level earthquake, 2, 3, 5 Appendix B
10..SSE safe shutdown earthquake, Chapters 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, Appendix B
11..SSEaft SSE aftershock, Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
12..SSI soil-structure interaction, Chapter 7 8
13..TCP thermal corner protection, Chapter 5 6
14..ULS ultimate limit state, Chapter 6 7
723 Hoff, G.C. 107 1 107 1 There is an editing error on Page 107, line 1. The Agree. Editorial. 2010.12.20
new Section number has been omitted. Web Ballot
8.1.1.8 Unless otherwise specified,
the concrete constitutive mode
model from European Code shall be
2 used for determining calculated
crack widths.
The cracking analysis shall be based

on a Finite Element Method that (1)
198 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Name Approved by
quorum vote
uses recognized or codified
constitutive models for the stress
strain behavior of concrete, and (2)
incorporates tension-stiffening
effects. When calculating calculated
crack widths the tension stiffening
term shall not be deducted from the
calculation where tension stiffening
is explicitly included in the analysis.
Additionally the calculated crack
widths shall be calculated as
characteristic and not mean
199 of 201 update 2011.03.24

1) As indicated by my specific comments above, my main interest is with offshore structures {bottom founded (GBS) and moored-floating}; while the work expended to create
Appendix B is commendable, I believe the design of a GBS OFFSHORE structure should follow ACI 357R, and not this standard. More specifically this means: the specification of load
categories, the defining recurrence periods for environmentally induced loads, the averaging period for wind loads, and Load Combinations and the Load Factors should be as specified
in Subsection 4.4 of ACI 357R. The use of this draft standard for these considerations will not be correct. For example, typically the dominant design environmentally induced load for
an offshore structure are hydrodynamic loads from wave and current (based on 100 year return period per Appendix B and ACI 357R). The hydrodynamic loads will be ‘Environmental
Loads: other’ in the Load Factor tables in Section 7 of the ACI 376 draft; thus a Load Factor of 1.6/ 0.5 is specified. Per ACI 357R, the Load Factor for wave induced storm loading is 1.3.
As can be seen, this will make a large difference in design requirements for the structure and its foundation or moorings.
1) Perhaps brief mention can be made about expected functions, subsystems and other considerations that will affect the design. For example: Is it expected that personnel will be
quartered on the offshore structure? Can transport / supply and maintenance vessels be expected to berth and moor to the platform? Will there be helicopter facilities? What needs
to be said about loading and unloading arrangements from the offshore terminal? Are there structural design implications concerning equipment to gasify/ re-gasify?
2) In the draft, reference is made to other ACI documents. In some cases the subject being referred to is of fundamental importance such as Load Case and Load Factors. To the
greatest extent possible, fundamentally important topics should be included in the standard itself. Personally, I do have the latest version of ACI 350, which appears to be necessary to
apply 376.
2) The design of a floating structure may have other ramifications that are not addressed by either draft ACI 376 or ACI 357R. In general, the type of structure for floating offshore LNG
storage will probably be more ‘ship-like’ and not cylindrical. More specifically the design criteria will also need to be more ship-like, where there will be the need to give consideration
to global ( ‘hull-girder’ strength) and local strength considerations. In maritime countries, the local authorities will have experience with LNG tank vessels, and it might be expected
that numerous local and international technical regulations dealing with such vessels will be applied to offshore storage structures. This has already happened with offshore oil storage
where Marine Pollution and other IMO Regulations are imposed by regulatory bodies (e.g. Coast Guards) on offshore hydrocarbon storage structures, even though the structure is not
a trading vessel.
3) In Appendix B, will any mention be made of: corrosion protection criteria; sea floor scour and scour protection; and structural inspections?
3) Mention is made in Appendix B (B.9) of structural removal. It may be appropriate to require in design –a study to assess the feasibility of platform removal and the need to build into
the structure special features that will facilitate removal; (such as under foundation slab water jet outlets to break soil adhesion). However, is structural removal typically considered in
the scope of ACI design and construction standards? Cognizant regulatory bodies will most likely have project specific requirements about structural siting, navigation hazards,
platform removal, etc. So, for such considerations it may be more appropriate just to mention that, “the rules and regulations of all cognizant regulatory bodies are to be identified and
considered in the design, construction, inspection, maintenance and repair of the platform.”
Blanchard, J. for NFPA 59A Task Group: As chairman (speaking for myself – not the NFPA 59A committee) of the NFPA 59A task group assigned to review this ACI document for general
content, and duplication & conflict with the NFPA 59A document, I can state that the ACI376 document provides much needed definition / regulation of concrete liquefied gas storage
structures. The ACI 376 document should allow NFPA 59A to reference the document to add the same depth of regulation as provided for steel tanks. While there are many minor
refinements which can be addressed in the revision process for the standard, the content and depth of coverage provide what the committee was looking for from ACI.
Blanchard, J. for NFPA 59A Task Group: Provide more provisions to limit design and construction variation. There is too much definition in the commentary section. If it is important,
set minimum requirements in the provision paragraphs and then place background and preferred direction in the commentary.
I would like to thank ACI for completing this effort in time to incorporate it into NFPA 59A during the current revision cycle.
John F. Conlon:
200 of 201 update 2011.03.24

John F. Conlon:
John F. Conlon: The draft is a very worthwhile document that fulfills important needs concerning the subject of RLG containment. Hopefully suggested improvements and corrections
will be made to the standard before it is issued.
John F. Conlon: This standard is needed to facilitate the use of concrete structures for LNG (RLG) containment. It is my understanding from this draft that the primary interfaces
between the LNG (RLG) and the concrete will be metal liners or specialized coatings.
Karl Kuebitz: This document is very clear and professional. Thank you to all of the contributors.
Overall opinion:
Please provide your input on the document in each area below:
Roy Reiterman: I am disillusioned to think that this text could be an ACI document.
Roy Reiterman: It’s obvious the text is biased toward fiber concrete and states that steel reinforced structures are an alternate.
Roy Reiterman: None. I do not believe that the text is accurate.
Strengths:
Suggestions for improvement:
The status of ACI 357R is called into question because of Appendix B. ACI needs to clarify the status of ACI 357R. Appendix B is not a suitable replacement for ACI 357R. Similarly the
status of ACI 357.2R for concrete barges and its relationship to Appendix B of ACI 376 needs to be addressed by ACI.
The task group review process was based on a draft version provided by ACI in February 2009. As such the comments above are limited to what the task group identified except for
comments which are no longer applicable due to final changes made by ACI376. Comments are mainly directed to eliminate conflict between standards. A critical detailed review for
design content was not made except to verify current NFPA59A provisions were satisfied.
Thomas A. Ballard: Much more guidance should be provided for use of time history analysis since details such as isolation are becoming important to design of RNG tanks in high
seismic regions. The Code should include a section on seismic isolation, time history selection, response spectrum matching and number of ground motions to be considered. It
would also be useful to discuss design of RLG below LNG temperatures, such as liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen tanks.
Thomas A. Ballard: Seismic isolation and other seismic analysis provisions.
Thomas A. Ballard: The entire Code is well written and covers a considerable amount of experience from the oil and tank manufacturing industry.
Thomas A. Ballard: This is a well written Code and should be very useful for designing RLG tanks.
Weaknesses:
201 of 201 update 2011.03.24

User Note: Double Underlined With Turquoise Highlight

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

User Note: Double Underlined With Turquoise Highlight

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Document: “Code Requirements for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures for the Containment of Refrigerated Liquefied Gases

(ACI 376) and Commentary”

NK #20 (Gap analysis #)

The code and commentary includes excerpts from

This commentary is not intended to provide a

2 of 201 update 2011.03.24

“Code Requirements for “Design and Construction of

Requirements more stringent than the Code

ACI 376 has no legal status unless it is adopted by

3 of 201 update 2011.03.24

ADD: Notwithstanding, the

4 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Define “extra gas pressures”.

Define the fire resistance. Does this apply to

5 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Define resistance to blast and impact for an internal

Define term “sacrificial liner”: For example: A

6 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Debbie provided additional

7 of 201 update 2011.03.24

8 of 201 update 2011.03.24

9 of 201 update 2011.03.24

10 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Correct reference is 8.1.1.8, and not

2010.10.04 Webinar response:

Response 28, 29. Agree.

11 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Response 28, 29.

12 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Also see response 25.

13 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Perhaps, the following definition can be used: Liner -

14 of 201 update 2011.03.24

See responses 47 and 48.

thermal corner protection (TCP)—

15 of 201 update 2011.03.24

17 of 201 update 2011.03.24

18 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Other tests are listed in this Code.

4.1.4—The complete record of

19 of 201 update 2011.03.24

See response 68.

See response 68.

See response 68.

See response 68.

For future action:

It is assumed that the commenter is

22 of 201 update 2011.03.24

I believe that the preliminary 376 text has been

23 of 201 update 2011.03.24

Also see Response 93

24 of 201 update 2011.03.24

See Responses 96, 97

25 of 201 update 2011.03.24

26 of 201 update 2011.03.24

The metal liners should be

Also see Response 107:

27 of 201 update 2011.03.24

28 of 201 update 2011.03.24

29 of 201 update 2011.03.24

In R1.1.1 make these changes:

Insert in its place:

"Only material selection criterion is