COADE Mechanical Engineering News

11) Can multiple ESLs be attached to the same parallel port? Yes, as long as they are for different programs. The software stops searching for the ESL as soon as one is recognized. This is not a problem for "local" ESLs, but could be a problem on a network. You can not have two COADE network (red) ESLs on the same network - the software will never find the second device. 12) What networks and what operating systems are supported by the Network ESL? The network ESL from Aladdin Software Security has been used with COADE software on Novell, Pathworks, and Banyon networks. Operating systems include DOS, Windows, and Windows/NT. 13) Does a site with multiple COADE products need multiple network ESLs? No - in fact, as point #11 stated, multiple ESLs with the same 10 code can not reside on the same network. The COADENetworkESLhas been setup to supportmultiple products, each with a specified number of licenses. Only one "network" ESL per network is required (possible).

April, 1995
be available for download from the COADE BBS as well as CompuServe. In addition, an "International" version of this data base will also be included. This "International" version will include several materials commonly used outside of the U.S. The revised API material data base will be designated A650_94.MA T, and the "International" data base will be designated A650_94I.MAT. Both material data bases will be contained in the download file 0 120_ C.ZIP. To utilize either ofthese new material data base files, place the ZIP file in the TANK program directory. Extract the data base files using PKUNZIP. Then, use the TANK configuration option to select the desired data base from the necessary data directories. The new scope limitation of Appendix P will appear as a warning message in the next version of TANK. This modification to the software will simply warn the user if nozzles are specified on a tank with a diameter less than 120 feet (36.6 meters). This will not prevent the program from running or applying the rules and equations of Appendix P.

Applying API-653
By Vincent Carucci

Impact of API-650 Addendum 1

By Richard Ay

The following article has been submittedfor publication by Vincent Carucci, Vice President of Carmagen Engineering, Inc., 7 Waverly Place, Madison, NJ 07940.

API-653 and Tank Shell Thickness Assessment The primary focus of this article is to discuss API-653 requirements for the shell thickness of atmospheric storage tanks. It will begin by first briefly summarizing the background and scope of API-653 to establish a foundation for what will follow. It will then generally describe tank inspection requirements and then focus on the shell. The article assumes that the readers are generally familiar with both API-650 and API-653. Background One catastrophic brittle fracture of a storage tank that occurred in 1988 spilled approximately 750,000 gallons of diesel fuel into adjacent storm sewers that then emptied into a nearby river. The owner of the tank spent several million dollars in cleanup costs and fmes because of this one incident This failure, along with two other spills that occurred within about a year of this one, focused a great deal of attention on the condition of existing storage tanks and the potential consequences of a failure. One result of this attention was the publication of API-653 in January 1991. API-653 addresses the condition of existing, aboveground, atmospheric pressure storage tanks that were originally

. In December 1994, API issued Addendum 1 to the ninth edition of the API-650 standard. While a number of pages in this code were revised by Addendum 1, there are only two changes which affect design or analysis computations (and therefore users of COADE's TANK program). The first change of interest concerns the API materials listed in Table 3-2, and their groups listed in Table 2-3. Addendum 1 has removed materials FE 42, FE 44, and FE 52 from these tables. In place of these materials, API has added FE 430 and FE 510. The second item of interest is a change in the scope of Appendix P, for nozzle flexibilities and limiting loads. Addendum 1 has added a phrase, limiting the applicability of this appendix. As paragraph P.l now reads, the use of Appendix P is recommended only for tanks in excess of 120 feet (36.6 meters) in diameter. How will these Addendum 1 changes affect TANK? The material data base will be revised to reflect the new materials, and remove the old FE materials. This new data base will

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

designed using API-650 or its predecessor, API-12C. API653 presents requirements that are intended to prevent a tank failure due to brittle fracture. However, API-653 requirements go beyond those that are necessary to prevent a brittle fracture. API-653 requires that existing tanks be periodically inspected to ensure that they are structurally sound, within the required allowable stresses, and will not leak before the next opportunity for inspection. Ensuring that a tank will not leak before the next inspection is more than just ensuring that it will not fail-eatastrophically. Even a small leak is unacceptable. Inspection and Engineering Evaluation An API-653 inspection program addresses four main components of the tank: the roof, shell, bottom, and foundation. These are the tank components that directly affect the structural integrity and liquid storage capability of the tank. API-653 does not specify the exact inspection procedures that must be followed nor the quantity of data that must be collected. It only specifies what must be inspected and the acceptance criteria. API-653 goes beyond merely requiring that the main tank components be inspected. It requires that an engineering evaluation be made of the inspection data to ensure that the structural condition of the tank meets specified acceptance criteria. This engineering evaluation must go beyond confirming that the tank is structurally sound at the time of inspection; it must confirm that the tank will remain structurally sound during the entire next period of operation. For example, assume that portions of the tank shell have thinned due to corrosion. You must assume that the corrosion will continue as the tank remains in operation. An API-653 evaluation of the shell thickness requires confirmation that the shell will not thin to an unacceptable level before it is inspected again. Therefore, evaluation of the shell thickness inspection data must confirm that each portion of the shell has sufficient corrosion allowance remaining for the entire next period of operation. Shell Inspection The tank shell must be visually examined for obvious flaws (e.g., weld defects) and other forms of deterioration (e.g., plate distortion or corrosion). The most common form of deterioration that must be addressed is corrosion, and shell wall thickness measurements must be made to evaluate the remaining thickness of the shell. While corrosion may be uniform over large areas of the shell, the shell is normally not uniformly corroded in its entirety. Large areas of the shell may not have corroded at all, whereas other areas may have experienced significant corrosion. For example:

April, 1995
The portion of the shell that corresponds to the normal operating liquid level may corrode more than the rest of the shell due to the liquid/vapor interface. Sludge and wax deposits may accumulate at the tank bottom near the shell and cause more corrosion in the lower portion of the bottom course than elsewhere. A large amount of corrosion in this area, but on the outside, may also be caused by rainwater accumulation due to poor tank pit drainage. One side of the tank may corrode more than the rest due to the prevailing wind direction.

Therefore, evaluation of tank shell integrity must consider the required shell thicknesses (which vary with elevation on the shell) and the actual thicknesses measured. The actual measured thicknesses will vary by tank course, and may vary by position around the tank circumference, by elevation within the course, or even by specific location within a given tank plate. SheD Integrity Evaluation API-653 provides procedures for calculating the minimum required shell course thicknesses and acceptance criteria for both uniforinIy corroded and pitted areas of the shell. This article focuses only on uniformly corroded areas. The minimum required shell plate thickness will normally be calculated using the following equation (Ref. Para. 2.3.3 of API-653), as long as the tank is no larger than 200 ft. in diameter:

tmin

2.6D(H -1)6

SE

Where: tmin ::::; Minimum acceptable thickness, in. Cannot be less than O. I in. for any shell course.
D::::;

Nominal tank diameter, ft.

= Height from the bottom of the most severely

corroded area in each shell course to the maximum design liquid level, ft.

= The highest specific gravity of the tank contents,

including water if the tank may be hydrotested in the future.

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

April,1995
minimum required thickness for both the stored liquid and water is acceptable. Then an acceptable fill height for each liquid can be back-calculated based on the measured thicknesses. "S" varies with shell course and is the same for both the stored liquid case and the hydrotest case. In these respects, it differs from API-650. APJ-650 uses the same material allowable stress regardless of the course that is being checked, and it uses a higher allowable stress for the hydrotest case. The values of the allowable stresses also differ from those that are in API-650 for the same material specifications. Note also that API-653 permits a shell integrity evaluation even if the shell material specification is unknown, with the assumption that the shell material is low in strength (i.e., Y = 30,000 psi and T = 55.000 psi). This can be a large penalty if the shell was actuall y fabricated using higher strength steel. Putting this in perspective, a tank may have been designed and constructed five years ago using A-516 Orade 70 plate for the shell (Y 38,000 psi and T = 70,000 psi). However, if all the tank records are lost and the materials cannot be confirmed, the tank cannot be filled to its original design fill height even if no corrosion at all has occurred (assuming that no excess thickness was provided in the original design). If nothing else, this emphasizes the importance of recordkeeping.

Maximum allowable stress, psi. The smaller of O.80Y or 0,426T for the bottom or second courses, or the smaller of 0.88Y or 0.472T for all other courses. "Y" is the specified minimum yield strength of the plate or 30,000 psi if the plate material is unknown. "T" is the smaller of the specified minimum tensile strength of the plate or 80,000 psi, or 55.000 psi if the plate material is unknown.

E = The original weld joint efficiency used in the tank design. Use E = 0.7 if the original E is unknown. E = 1.0 if a corroded area that is being evaluated is far enough away from the welds, with the distance as defined by API-653. This is obviously a very simple equation, but this can deceive you into thinking that a complete shell evaluation is simpler than it really is. We will now look at some things to be careful of. As previously mentioned, this equation can only be used if the tank diameter is no greater than 200 ft. That is because this equation is based on the One-Foot shell thickness calculation method of API-650. For larger diameter tanks, the evaluation must be made using the variable design point method of API-650. This is a more complicated, iterative calculation procedure (but use of COADE's TANK program makes it simple). Note that the Variable Design Point Method may be used for smaller diameter tanks if desired.

The evaluation must be made for every shell course. "H" is measured from the bottom of the most severely corroded area in each shell course, not necessarily from the bottom of the course. However, when inspection data are provided for evaluation, you often just get the minimum thickness or a range of thicknesses measured in each course with no indication of the elevations within the course where the measurements were made. Therefore, without additional information, the evaluation must be made using the conservative assumption that the corrosion is at the bottom of the course in question.

"E" must be assumed to be 0.7 if the "E" used in the original design is unknown. Here again, this can be an extreme penalty to pay if the actual joint efficiency was much higher than this. The reason for this low value is that even as late as 1970, tanks may have been designed with this low weld joint efficiency (depending on the shell weld detail and inspection specified). Note that "E" can be assumed to be equal to 1.0 (Le., do not worry about the welds) if you are evaluating a corroded area that is far enough away from the welds. Unfortunately, the initial inspection data that you receive may not show how close the corroded area is to the welds. Calculating the minimum required thickness for each shell course (and in corroded regions) is really a means to an end. The information that you really want is the following:

"0" must consider both the specific gravity of the stored liquid and whether the tank will be hydrotested in the future. Hydrotesting is required if major repairs or alterations are needed. However to maximize the permitted fill height of the stored liquid, calculating the

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

How much corrosion allowance do I have left at the relevant elevations in the shell? How long can the tank stay in operation based on the available corrosion allowances? 2. Vhat are the maximum permitted tank fill heights for both the stored liquid and for any future hydrotest? Note that future corrosion allowance must be considered even for the hydrotest case when doing an API-653 evaluation, which differs from an API-650 design evaluation. API-650 is a design standard, which assumes that the tank is hydrotested right after it has been built and the plates arc all at their new thicknesses, and does not consider future hydrotests. API-653 addresses the actual condition of existing tanks (i.e., considers deterioration). The API-653 evaluation must consider all loads that can be applied (i.e., must consider future hydrotests).

April, 1995
Several things are going against you in this problem. I. The shell material is unknown; therefore, you must use the API-653 default material yield and tensile strengths. Since there arc no original records, you do not know for sure ~.'hat shell weld inspection was done or the weld joint efficiency used in the design. Therefore, API-653 forces you to use E == 0.7. The inspection data only gave the minimum thickness measured and did not say exactly what elevation in the bottom course the minimum thickness was at. Therefore, you must assume that the entire corroded area is at the bottom of the coilrse and that it is all 1.125 in. thick.

3.

Figure 2 shows the initial input data used for this problem. and Figure 3 shows the portion of the output that is relevant for our purposes.

Shell Evaluation Example Ve'll now put all these words t(l a practical test using the TANK Program. Assume that a shell thickness inspection has just been done of the external floating roof, crude oil storage tank shown in Figure I. This tank was built 10 year:; ago, but all the design and fabrication records have been lost. From the thickness measurements made, only one area of corrosion was found in the bottom shell course, and this corrosion extends for a maximum vertical distance of 40 in. The minimum thickness reported in this corroded area was 1.125 in. No corrosion was noted elsewhere in the shell, and the original nominal course thicknesses are as shown in the figure ( based on the thickness measurements made). The design fill height for the tank is 56 ft., and the specific gravity of the crude oil is 0.8. It is your job to decide if the tank can remain in service at the desired design fill height.
AP [ Oes i gn Code { 650 or 653 ) ................... Design Method (V. O. or AJ ...................... (V-variable. O-one foot. A-Appendix A) Run Objective (Q-design. A-analyze) ....................................................... Design Temperature ......................... (F ) Design Pressure at Top ........... ,. (lb,/sQ,in.) She 11 Materi a 1 ................................... Shell Design Stress LSd] ............ (lb./sq.iIL) Shell Hydro Test Stress (St] ............................................ (lb./sq.i".) Tank Nominal Diameter I.D] ................ (ft.) Tonk Shell Height [HTK) .................... (ft.) Design Liquid Level [H] .................... (ft.) Liquid Specific Gravity [G] ................... 65 3D
A

15.000 OOOD O
UNKNOWN

Weight of Attachments & Structures ........................................ (l b.)

Distance down to Top Wind Girder., ........... (ft.) JOint Efficiency (App A or 653) [E] ...................................................... . Wind Velocity ................................................................................ (mph ) Num~er of Shell Courses ....................................................................., .. Shell Course g 1 Height ....................................................................... (ft.) Shell Course g 1 Thickness .................. (in.) She 11 Course g 1 -Corros; On Allowance [CA) ... (i n. ) Shell Course 11 2 Height ................... (ft.) Shell Course 1/ 2 inickness ................... (in.) Shell Course 1/ 2 Corrosion Allowance (CA] ..... ("in.) Shell Course 11 3 Hei ght .................... (ft.) She 11 Course 11 3 Thi ckness ................... ('j n. ) Shell Course g 3 CorrosiOn Allowance [CA] ..... ('in.) Shell Course II 4 Height. ..................... (ft.) Shell Course II 4 Thickness ............................................................... (in.) Shell Course g 4 Corrosion Allowance [CA] ...................................... (in.) Shell Course If 5 Height ....................................................................... (ft,) Shell Course If 5 Thickness ................................................................. (in.) Shell Course If 5 CorrosiOn Allowance [CA] ...................................... (;n.) Shell Course fI 6 Height ...................................................................... (ft.) Shell Course 1/ 6 Thickness ............................................................... (in.) Shell Course 1/6 Corresion Allowance teA] ....................................... (in.) Shell Course g 7 Height ...................................................................... (ft.) She 11 Course 1/ 7 Thi ckness .......................................................... (i n. ) Shell Course 1/ 7 Corrosion Allowance [CA] ..................................... (in.) Shell Course 1/8 Height. ..................... (ft.) Shell Course I! 8 Thickness ................... (in.) Shell Ccurse I! 8 Corrosion Allowance [CA] ..... (in.)

.00000 00000 175.00 64.000 56.000 . 800DO . 00000 3.0000 . 70000 IDO. DO
B

Figure 1

Figure 2 Input Data for Case 1

B.OOO OL 1250 .D DODO 8. 0000 1.1250 OOOD O 8.0000 . 87500 00000 8. 0000 .7 5000 .0 0000 8. DODO . 62500 . OODO O e.ODO O .3750 0 .0000 0 8. DODO . 37500 . OOOO D 8. OODO .
375DO

Example Problem

Unknown Material - 'E == 0.7

00000

1 0

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

April, 1995
The ,econd pan of Ihc output ~ho', tlw nuim11111 permitted fill hcights ba"ed tllllhc sh.:llihicknc<s d~II'1. 1'otc that the hottol11 C<lIHse limits the pcnnillcd fill h~'ight of crudc nil to 51.(,l) fl. r:-Illure h droll',l' ould he limited (0 an evcnlowcr 11l:ighl...j 1.552 rl. /bo do not ignorl' the hydrotest fill hcightlimits thatrhc upper coursc' would impose. een if yo II decidc to rcr~m th~' botlnrn coursc . The cOllclusiun~ that crt' prescnted do not Cll1Silkr any futurc corrosion Ih<ll wOlild lake plan: during the next period nfoperation since Ihe input did not include a con"(lsjon allowance. Therl'fore. future cllrro~i()n lIlust hceonsidered in conjunction with the:-;e evaluation resul1~ in order to arrive at an al'ceplahk operating interval beforl~ the next inspection. Note lhal Para. 4.3.3.2e of API653 requires that when till' corrosion ralC is known (as in this case) the maximum ~hcll inspection inten'almust he the smalln of RCAn~ or 15 YC;lrs. where ReA is the remaining eOr!'OSI(.I!l allowance in lTIlh and i is the eorru:,ion rate In mils per

SHELL COURSE THICKNESS DATA Thickness Values for Three Cases COURSE DESIGN TEST
( in. )
(i n. )

USER
(i n.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1.2207 1.0431 .78120 .62096 .46071 .30046 .14022 .10000

1.5258 1.3039 .97650 .77619 . 57589 .37558 .17527 .10000

1.1250 1.1250 .87500 .75000 .62500 .37500 .37500 .37500

NA NA NA
N,

NA NA NA NA

API-653 THICKNESS/CORROSION RESERVES Retiring Thickness Remaining Corrosion Design Test Design Test
(i n. ) (I n.) (I n.)
(i n.

1.2207
1.0431

2 3
4

6 7 8

.78120 .6209 6 .460 71 .30 046 .1 4022 . 00000

1.5258 1.3039 .9765 0 .776 19 .57 589 .3 7558 . 17527 .0000

l 1 J

.95657E-O .81893-0 .93798E-O .12904 .16 429 .7453801 .23478 . 37500

MiN TJ
(deg F

.40082 .17888 - .10150 .2619401 49114E - 0 I

. S778lE 03 .19973 .3

7500

SHELL COURSE ALLOWED FLUID HEIGHTS Fluid Heights for Three Cases COURSE DESIGN TEST REQUIRED
(ft.l (ft.) (ft.)

ycaL
At thi~ poim, YOll have a couple of decisions to 111<ll-.e. /h it slands now. the tank cannot be filled 'vith crude oiltn a height of more than 51.69 fl.. representing a capacity reduction of almost XCk. and you still haVc' to reduce this further to aeCtlunt for future corwsion until the next inspection. You also have 1.0 be sure that the lank is nol filled with water beyond its limiling height. Ag,jin nOle that future cOr!'osiofl mU:-;1 also be considered for the hydrotest case. If the particular site i:-; "rich" in tank capacity. then you can just dctermine the desired inspection inlnv;t1, calculate the required corrosion allowan<.:c in order to achieve tbis interval. and redo the calculations 10 arrive ;11 final fill height limitations. However, It would probahly he preferable to do a bit morc in,peclion and e'allation first. This lank wa~ built I () ycar~ ago, and the Sth edillOn of API650 was in effeci at that lime. Staning with the 7th edition of API-650, it can be safdy assumed Ihatthc design weld joint efficiency was 1.0 as long as the tank wa~ nOI designed in accordance with Appendix A. An Ippendix A design would only apply iflhe maximum shell plall~ thicknc>s was 1/2 in. Since this lank's shell is thickcr than 1;2 in., it could nol have been designed per Appendix A. Therefore as long as there is st ill an API-()50 nameplate on (he tank (cnnfinning that it Vas designed and erected in accordance with API650 at the time) it would he reasonable to use E= 1.0 for the API-6S} evaluation (which still conforms to the intent or API-653). Now let", see how u~ing E = 1.0 affects the concJusion:-;. Figure 4 pnl'idcs the output rur this case.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

51.690 51.690 44.683 38.442 32.202 19.721 19.721 19.721

41. 552 41. 552 35.946 30.954 25.962 15. 977 15.977 15.977

56.000 48.000 40.000 32.000 24.000 16.000 8.0000 .00000

Figure 3 Output Data for Case I

The first pass evaluation shows that you hae a couple of problems. The remaining shell thickness in the bottom course is not sufficient foreitherthe design liquid or the hydrotest watcr(nOle (he negative available corrosion allowances). Howeycr, more diswrbing is that Courses 2. 3, 4 and 6 arc also no good although no corrosion at all was found. This clearly illustrates the imparlance of maintaining tank records since an API-653 ev~t1uation could force downrating a tank (i.e., limiting its fill height) even if no dcterioration is found.

1 1

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

April,1995
This says you have to inspect the shell again in just over a year in order to still operate the tank at its maximum fill height without repairing the corroded area. This is still not an attractive conclusion. At this point. it probably would be worthwhile to ask the inspectors to go out and take more thickness measurements in the corroded area to better define the extent of the corrosion and the actual elevation that it starts at. The evaluations that have been made thus far were based on the minimum thickness that was measured; however, API-653 permits that the measured shell thicknesses be "averaged", and that the evaluation be made considering both the average and minimum thicknesses in the corroded region (Ref. Paras. 2.3.2 and 2.3.3.1 of API-653). There is no advantage to rmding out how close the corrosion is to the welds in this case since we are already using E = 1.0. Let's now assume that the following additional inspection data have been obtained:

API-653 THICKNESS/CORROSION RESERVES

Retiring Thickness Design Test (in.) (in.)

.85446 .7 3017 .546 84 .43467 .32250 . 21032 .98 151E01 . 00000

Remaining Corrosion Design Test (in.) (in.)

.2705 4 .39 483 . 32816 .3153 3 .30 250 . 16468 .2768 5 .37 500 HEIGHTS REOUIRE D (ft. ) .56925E-O l .21228 .19145 .2 0666 .221 88 .11210 .25231 . 37500

1
2

3 4 5 6 7 8

Fluid Heights for Three Cases

TEST
(ft. ) (ft. )

1.068 1 .91 272 . 68355 .5433 4 .40 312 . 26290 .1226 9 .00 000 SHELL COURSE ALLOWED FLUID

COURSE DESIGN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 73.414 73.414 63.404 54.489 45.574 27.745 27. 745 27. 745

58.93 56.00 1 0 58.93 48.00 1 0 50.92 40.00 3 0 43.79 32.00 1 0 36.65 24.00 9 0 22.39 16.00 6 0 Figure 4 22.39 8.000 Case 26Output Unknown 0 .00 22.39 Material - E=1.0 000 6

The worst portion of the corroded area really does start at the bottom of the course. Five thickness measurements, equally spaced per API653 criteria, result in the following measurements: 1.2, 1.25, 1.3, 1.2, 1.125. This yields an average thickness of 1.215 in.

This change in "E" has made a big difference; there is actually a corrosion allowance left even for the hydrotest case. You can now determine the required inspection interval based on these results and see if this suits your inspection, maintenance, and operations planning needs. First calculate the corrosion rate, N, based on the maximum corrosion that has occurred. N = (Original Thickness - Minimum Measured Thickness)N ears of Operation N

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

= 0.147/2 x 0.025 = 2.9 years

= (1.375 - 1.125)/10 = 0.025 in.lyear.

This corrosion rate is quite severe. The minimum remaining corrosion allowance is 0.057 in. (Based on the bottom course). Therefore the maximum shell inspection interval is calculated as follows: Shell Inspection Interval = RCAI2N Shell Inspection Interval = 0.057/2 x 0.025 = 1.14 years

This is better than before but not great. Operating companies wantto maximize their inspection intervals, usually targeting for at least 10 years or more. Note that the complete API653 evaluation of this case would also require checking that the minimum measured thickness (1.l25 in. in this case) is at least 60% of the required thickness plus the needed corrosion allowance, but we can easily see that this second criterion does not govern here. At this point, you might choose to repair the shell in order to achieve complete flexibility for future hydrotesting; however, it's worth pointing out one more thing before concluding this example. There may be situations where the site cannot take the time to make the repair now and needs to get the tank back into service. It is possible to use the TANK program to calculate the fill height limitations assuming the needed corrosion allowance until the next inspection.

12

COADE Mechanical Engineering News

In this case, assume that you want to place the tank back into service and inspect it again in five years. For this situation, you need a corrosion allowance of (5 x 2 x 0.025) 0.25 in. This corrosion allowance is then used as input data and the fill-height limits can be calculated. The results are shown in Figure 5. Note that when you run this case, you must reset theT ANK program defaultto consider the corroded hydrotest case for an API-653 evaluation (i.e., within the Computation Control section of the program configuration menu) .

April,1995

API-653 THICKNESS/CORROSION RESERVES

Retiri Desi (in.)

.78326 .6693 3 .504 12 .40 071 .2

1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8

9730

API-653 THICKNESS/CORROSION RESERVES Retiring Thickness Remaining Corrosion Design Test Design Test (in.) (in.) (in.) (In.)

19389 .90 483E-Ol . 00000

.97907 .8366 6 .630 15 .50 089 .3 7163 . 24237

.11310 .00000

.43174 .4556 7 .370 88 .34 929 .3 2770 .1 8111 . 28452

.37500

.23593 .2883 4 .244 85 .24 911 .2 5337 . 13263 .26190 .3750 0

1
2

3 4 5
6

.85446 .7 3017 .546 84 .43467 .32250 .2 1032 .981 51E-Ol .0 0000

1.0681

.9127 2 .683 55 .54 334 .4 0312 .

26290

.12269 .0000 0

.36054 .3948 3 .328 16 .31 533 .3 0250 . 16468 .27685 .3750 0

.14692 .2122 8 .191 45 .20 666 .2 2188 . 11210 .25231 .3750 0

SHELL COURSE ALLOWED FLUID HEIGHTS Fluid Heights for Three Cases REQUIRE COURSE DESIGN TEST D (ft. ) (ft. ) (ft. ) 1 68.762 55.210 56.000 2 62.442 50.154 48.000 3 49.352 39.681 40.000 4 39.681 31.945 32.000 5 30.011 24.209 24.000 6 10.670 8.7363 16.000 7 10.670 8.7363 8.0000 8 10.670 8.7363 .00000

SHELL COURSE ALLOWED FLUID HEIGHTS Fluid Heights for Three Cases COURSE DESIGN TEST REQUIRED (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) 63.115 50.692 56.000 1

Figure 6 Case 4 Output A-SI6 Gr. 60 Plate - CA = 0.25 in. - E = 1.0

In looking at Figure 6, you can clearly see the difference that the material specification makes. There is now only a minimal fill height limitation even for the hydrotest case. This article discussed several things to be considered when doing a shell thickness evaluation in accordance with API-653 and illustrated these using an example. Items that were not discussed include evaluation of pitting, using the TANK program to check corroded areas at elevations that are above the bottom of a course, shell thickness evaluations for riveted tanks, using the Variable Design Point Method. and using detailed stress analysis to evaluate locally corroded regions. We are planning to write .future articles to discuss these and other topics.

Figure 5 Case 3 Output Unknown Material - CA 0.25 in. - E

= 1.0

As you can see from Figure 5, the tank can remain in service for five years (actually more) at the design fill height of crude oil without repairs as long as hydrotest is not a consideration during this time period. Depending on the circumstances, this may lead you to conclude that it is not necessary to make any repairs now.
57.322
2 3
4 5
6

45.574

36.659 27.745 9.9148 9.9148 9.9148

46.058 36.659 29.527 22.396 8.1319 8.1319 8.1319

48.000 40.000 32.000 24.000 16.000 8.0000 .0000 0

The last thing that is worth noting is the impact that the "weak material" assumption has on the evaluation. The output summarized in Figure 6 is for the exact same case as in Figure 5 but assumes that you found data that indicates that the entire shell was fabricated from A - 516 Grade 60 plate. Maybe the tank contractor still had the original design information for the tank.