Paper PS4-3

RLG TANK DESIGN, PRINCIPLES, AND APPLICATION RULES: INVENTORY AND VARIATIONS ACROSS VARIOUS STANDARDS
Pierre Vander Meulen Manager LNG Tanks Tractebel Engineering Brussels, Belgium pierre.vandermeulen@tractebel.com

ABSTRACT This paper aims, by a side by side comparison, to review the major requirements appearing in the following leading design standards (into force or draft) for refrigerated liquid storage tanks ; BS 7777 (1973), EN 1473 (1997), API 620 appendix Q (2002), NFPA 59A (2001) and (2006), Draft prEN 1473 (2005) and Draft prEN 14620 (2003). The requirements are analysed from the following points of view: the standards scope and limits of application, design criteria, materials, specific constitutive parts, etc. This paper, mainly oriented to the outer tank design, inspired by the technical requirements content of several Invitation to Bid, also aims, through some selected characteristic requirements, to highlight the major differences between the above mentioned standards and to identify some contradictory points. Based on past design experience, the possible lack or incompleteness of the criteria versus the typical Invitation to Bid requirements and versus the usual design practices are also pointed out, with a suggestion for further developments in the future standards.

PS4-3.1

Paper PS4-3

INTRODUCTION The Invitation to Bid (ITB) documents relating to the design of Refrigerated Liquefied Gas (RLG) storage tanks are, by essence, the first basic reference documents for the successful bidder. This ITB generally contains some technical specifications specifically dedicated to the storage tank design which are, in turn, referring to one or several international standards and also to design criteria which are specifically imposed by the Owner. It is not uncommon that the tank designer has, from the early beginning of the project, to face at least two problems. The first one is the possible contradiction between several standards relating to the design criteria, coefficients, applicable codes and standards, lack of clear definitions and much other missing or contradictory information. It is also not uncommon to find, in some ITB, references to actual standards but also to advanced draft versions of modified or new standards, which could be in conflict. The today ambitious project time schedules and fast track projects require more and faster front end engineering design and challenging construction phases. This situation is obviously calling for a reinforcement and/or issuance of new standards. This paper aims to highlight some differences and the possible lack of coherence between the most usual standards, both into force or at a draft stage. This paper is more oriented to the outer tank design. This paper does not intend to gives a large spectrum of criteria comparison; it focuses, in the authors mind, on the most relevant criteria. DEFINITION OF CODES AND STANDARDS AND APPLICATION FIELD It is useful to point out that the wording standard can be defined as a set of technical definitions and guidelines, how to instructions for designers, manufacturers and users. Standards promote safety, reliability, productivity and efficiency in industry that relies on engineering components or equipment. Standards become mandatory when they have been incorporated into a business contract or incorporated into regulations. A code is a standard that has been adopted by one or more governmental bodies and has the force of law. Standards are a vehicle of communication for producers and users. They serve as a common language, defining quality and establishing criteria.

PS4-3.2

Paper PS4-3

In the following text, the wording standards is used as a general term for codes and standards. MAIN DESIGN STANDARDS CONSIDERED For the purpose of this paper we consider the following standards which are the most commonly used and imposed by the ITBs for the RLG tanks design:
Table 1. Standards considered
Standard Year Title Flat-bottomed, vertical, cylindrical storage tanks for low temperature service Installation and equipment for liquefied natural gas -Design of onshore installations Installation and equipment for liquefied natural gas -Design of onshore installations Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-Pressure Storage Tanks [Appendix Q-Low pressure Storage Tanks for Liquefied Hydrocarbon Gases] Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Design and manufacture of site built, vertical, cylindrical, flatbottomed steel tanks for the storage of refrigerated, liquefied gases with operating temperatures between -5C and -165C Part considered Parts 1 &3 Comment

BS 7777

1993

See note 1

EN 1473

1997

Draft prEN 1473

2005 version 2.2

API 620 APPENDIX Q

2002 + add 2004

Appendix Q

NFPA 59A

2001

NFPA 59A

2006

Draft prEN 14620

2003

Parts 1, 3 and 5

See note 2

Note 1 : The BS 7777 has been recently (29/12/06) replaced by the BS EN 14620 (2006) set. Note 2 : The Draft prEN 14620 has been superseded and the EN 14620 has been officially registered in many countries at the end of 2006. The present paper is still based on the draft version.

We consider the NFPA 59A on two versions since the last edition 2006 is actually rarely referenced in the ITBs currently issued. The API 620 has been included in the list of standards examined for completeness reasons and for its frequent occurrence in the ITBs reference documents. Nevertheless, this standard being more oriented to full steel tanks, is not contributing significantly to the comparison.

PS4-3.3

Paper PS4-3

A draft of ACI 376 relating to the low temperature and cryogenic storage tanks is under development. The author did not get access to that draft. We mention it for the record only. In the following text, the standards means the set of above mentioned standards. STANDARDS TYPICAL SCOPE The standards are supposed to provide a set of technical definitions and guidelines on the following: design conditions, criteria for the selection of a storage concept, design criteria, testing, commissioning/decommissioning, inspection, monitoring. When looking at most of the ITBs documents which are referring to a wide selection of those standards, it may be assumed that all standards are somehow covering the same object. In fact most of the standards are dealing with a wide range of the above mentioned definitions and guidelines, but it is not difficult to classify the standards considered in three categories, on a scope point of view, as follows: Standards more oriented to RLG installations and equipment in general : EN 1473 and NFPA 59A; Standards more oriented to RLG storage steel tanks : API 620; Standards more oriented to RLG storage steel and concrete tanks : BS 7777 and prEN 14620. All of them are nevertheless dealing with Refrigerated Liquefied Gas storage tanks but with different degree of detail. The standards are nevertheless limiting their scope on several aspects as shown on the following:

PS4-3.4

Paper PS4-3

Table 2. Scope of the considered standards

Max design pressure Type of gas
LPG, Ethylene, Ethane, LNG (and similar hydrocarbons), Ammonia, Oxygen, N2, Argon LNG

Temperature range

Liquid gas density

BS 7777

(-6 mbarg to) 140 mbarg (note 1)

Down to -165C (-196C for single cont.)

EN 1473 Draft prEN 1473 API 620 APPENDIX Q NFPA 59A (2001) NFPA 59A (2006)

500 mbar

From -5C down to -165C From -5C down to -165C

500 mbar

LNG Liquefied ethane, ethylene and methane LNG

1.03 bars (gauge).

Down to -168C

Down to -168C

In no case < 470 kg/m3 In no case < 470 kg/m3

LNG Products having an atmospheric boiling point below ambient temperature, in a dual phase (RLG)

Down to -168C

Draft prEN 14620

500 mbarg

From -5C down to --165C

Note 1 : this internal positive pressure may be exceeded subject to agreement between purchaser and contractor BS 7777 [part 1, 4]

The following types of tanks are commonly recognized worldwide: Single containment [SC]; Double containment [DC]; Full containment [FC]; Membrane containment [MC]; Semi-buried containment [SBC]; In-Pit containment [IPC]; In-Ground containment [IGC]1.

In our knowledge, the only standard which is really dealing with this type is the Japan Gas Association Standard JGA-107-02. From our recent experience, more and more European Owners are interested by such a type, mainly for safety and/or visual impact reasons. The absence of requirements (or the difficulties to apply conjointly with the JGA the above mentioned standards for this particular type) could be perceived as a decision obstacle by the Owners.

PS4-3.5

Paper PS4-3

The standards deal with these differently; not all of them are systematically mentioned and the degree of details is variable from one standard to the other, as shown in the Table 3 below.
Table 3. Tank types considered by the standards
Cryogenic concrete tanks Spherical storage tanks

SC

DC

FC

MC

SBC

IPC

IGC

BS 7777

X (1) X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X*

EN 1473 Draft prEN 1473 API 620 APPENDIX Q NFPA 59A (2001) NFPA 59A (2005) Draft prEN 14620

(2) X X X X X X (2) X X

* Briefly mentioned by the standard without further details about the specific aspects (1) For Oxygen, N2 and Argon (2) Only mentioned in the list of definitions

It has to be noted that the two most recent standards (Draft prEN 1473 and Draft prEN 14620) are both giving some latitude by accepting other types as expressed for instance in the Draft prEN 14620 [Part 1,1] by :"The requirements of this European Standard cannot cover all details of design and construction because of the variety of sizes and configurations that may be employed. Where complete requirements for a specific design are not provided, the intention is for the designer, subject to approval of the purchaser's authorized representative, to provide design and details that are as safe as those laid out in this European Standard DESIGN/CONCEPT CRITERIA There is a wide range of design criteria mentioned and defined in the standards and the variation in the degree of detail is extremely large. Among those criteria, we have selected the ones appearing in the following Table 4 which, in our opinion, are the most representative of the differences existing between the standards

PS4-3.6

Paper PS4-3

Table 4. Significant design criteria differently considered by the standards

Design criteria Criteria characterization OBE & SSE mean return interval Seismic loads Seismic classification and operability Impact of projectiles or flying objects External explosions and their effect Flying objects definition Blast load definition and pressure distribution along the tank Inner spillage definition External spillage definition Inlets and outlets penetrations Minor and major internal leak, external leak LNG tightness of secondary container Minimum compressive zone and minimum compressive stresses in secondary container Outer container cracks opening limitation Allowable settlement of outer containments Miscellaneous criteria Hoop stresses in case of SSE Tank levels and volumes definitions

Seismic Loads

OBE and SSE Mean Return Interval. For all the standards, the mean return (recurrence) interval is 475 years for OBE and 4 975 years for SSE, except for the prEN 1473 [4.3.2.4] where the SSE interval is 10 000 years and for the NFPA 59A (2006) [7.2.2.3] where the SSE interval is 2 475 years. Seismic Classification and Operability. On a seismic protection point of view, the plant systems and their components should be classified on the basis of their importance. For what relates to the tanks, the classification is not the same among the standards as shown in Table 5 below:

PS4-3.7

Paper PS4-3

Table 5. Operability and integrity criteria for SSE and OBE

EN 1473 [5.4.8] Draft prEN 1473 [4.5.2.2] Draft prEN 14620 [part 1, D.1] NFPA 59 A (2001) [4.1.3.5] and (2006) [7.2.2.6 & 7] The impounding system shall, as a minimum, be designed to withstand an OBE while holding the volume V . After an OBE, there shall be no loss of containment capability. The impounding system shall, as a minimum, be designed to withstand an SSE while empty. After an SSE, there shall be no loss of containment capability

OBE

Secondary containment (as a minimum) shall remain operational after OBE

Primary containment shall remain operational after OBE

Tank operability during and after OBE

SSE

Secondary containment (as a minimum) shall keep its integrity in case of SSE

Primary containment shall keep its integrity in case of SSE

Primary container shall contain the liquid (for single, double or full tanks) Membrane or concrete outer tank shall contain the liquid (for membrane tanks)

Impact of Projectiles or Flying Objects

It is a common practice, in most of the ITBs, to mention the impact or flying objects as a design case. The standards are generally referring to it through specific requirements for a hazard assessment study. The only standard which is giving some rational design guidance for that case is the BS 7777 [part 1, 7.3.2] by a valve weighing 50 kg and traveling 45m/s. Many ITBs are referring to this clause, but this information is not sufficient. Most of the formula dealing with that subject require additional information such as the size of the object (the diameter) and the deformability of the object (rigid or non-rigid body) Furthermore the structure behavior criteria under that sort of impact are almost never mentioned in the ITBs. When a structure is subjected to an impact local damages will occur like the spalling (ejecting of concrete pieces from the front face of the target), the penetration (the entry of the flying object into the object without exiting out on the back face), the perforation (the entry of the flying object into the target and its exit out of the back face), the scabbing (the ejecting of concrete pieces which have at least the size of the concrete cover from the back face) and the punch type shear failure (the ejecting of significant concrete pieces from the back face). The following question what could be the contribution of the liner, the perlite, the resilient blanket and the inner tank wall plates in the resistance against the scabbing and punch type shear failure, for the integrity of the inner container? could be an interesting field of development. It is sure that in this category the aircraft (engines) impact and terrorism effects could become recurrent design criteria. The problem lies in a clear definition of the criteria
PS4-3.8

Paper PS4-3

External Explosions and Their Effects

Another classic ITB requirement is a blast wave induced by a gas-cloud explosion. The standards are possibly mentioning the need for an information to be supplied by the purchaser (e.g. in BS 7777 [Part 1, 7.3.2] or in Draft prEN 14620 [Part 1, .3.3.4]), but they are not giving any guidance on that topic. The intensity and development of a blast wave is a function of the volume of the cloud, the degree of confinement ad the intensity at the source of ignition. In the ITBs, if not specifically indicated as to be defined by a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), the blast wave is sometimes indicated by just the peak pressure and the duration. This information is not sufficient and the following one should help to avoid further discussion during the project: The diagram time-pressure (positive and negative); The pressure distribution along the wall (pressure in function of the horizontal azimuth); The pressure distribution along the dome (pressure in function of the vertical azimuth). In absence of defined data a reference could be found in Richtlinien fr die Bemessung von Stahlbetonbauteilen von Kernkraftwerken fr auergewhnliche uere Belastungen (Erdbeben uere Explosionen, Flugzeugabsturz) 04/1974 as published in the Beton Kalender with the typical cat head shape.
Minor and Major Internal Leak, External Leak

By essence, in case of a double, full or membrane containment, the external container is directly subject to the pressure and thermal action of the liquid gas in case of inner tank or membrane leak. In addition to the structural effect, the leak has also an impact on the boil-off development and on the pressure relief system. In case of a leak in the piping system, the tank roof/dome is also subject to a spillage scenario. Several related topics are developed below. Inner Container Spillage Definition. Most of the standards and ITBs are mentioning a minor and a major leak. The minor leak is generally associated to a cold spot [see prEN 14620, Part 1, 7.3.3.1]. The major leak is related to the need for the secondary container to hold the inner container maximum liquid content [see BS 7777, Part 1, 7.3.4]. Among the standards the only objective definition of the inner tank leakage is given by the prEN 14620 [Part 1, 7.2.2.1] in the specific purpose of the pressure relief valve design, as a hole of 20 mm diameter in the first course of the shell. From past experience, the lack of a clear definition, but also of a clear understanding of what could be the effect of such a leak, has led to endless discussions. The above mentioned definition does not clarify the technical aspects attached to the leak phenomenon such as the thermodynamic effects of the flow, the interaction of the flowing
PS4-3.9

Paper PS4-3

liquid with the insulating materials (perlite, resilient blanket), the cold spot shape and size developed in the splash zone against the outer tank wall, etc. The scenario is much more complicate than a simple hydraulic free flow through a defined orifice. Another linked subject is also the correct understanding of the boil-off generation of such a spillage flow through the tank inner space occupied by the insulation material and possibly the resilient blanket. The future standards editions should propose a clear definition associated with some design guidance. More and more the ITBs are considering, in the possible loading combination cases, the major leak associated with the OBE and are requiring the capability of the outer containment to retain the liquid. The rationale is expressed in the NFPA 59A (20006) [B.3.4] by should the LNG container fail following an SSE, the impounding system must remain intact and be able to contain the contents of the LNG container when subject to an aftershock. It is assumed that the strength of the aftershock can be reasonably represented by an OBE. This criteria and associate safety factors should be a standard requirement in the future standards editions. External Spillage Definition. The external spillage is broadly outlined in several standards by a recommendation such as the one of the BS 7777 (1993) [Part1, C.3.6] The outer tank should be protected from the adverse effect of any accidental spillage of the product onto the tank roof or shell The dome spillage collection system is not really handled by the standards; the prEN 14620 (2003) [Part 1, 7.3.3.2] cursory mentions, without further development Area where spillage can occur shall be designed for contact with the product liquid or protected by provision of catchment and drainage. A similar requirement exists in the NFPA 59 A (2001) [4.1.2.5] and NFPA 59 A (2006) [7.2.1.5] by Any portion of the outer surface area of an LNG container that accidentally could be exposed to low temperatures resulting from the leakage of LNG or cold vapor from flanges, valves seals, or other nonwelded connections shall be intended for such temperatures or otherwise protected from the effect of such exposure From our past experience, the spillage collection down to the grade level impounding basins and the associated down comers systems are subject to extensive discussions with Owners. The size, type and design of the down comers are actually not supported by any accepted concept and may considerably vary from one project to the other. One of the topics being subject to discussion is the effect of the gas vaporization into the down comers and the way of guaranteeing the LNG flow. The NFPA 59A (2001) [2.2.2.3] and NFPA 59A (2006) [5.2.2.4] are mentioning the fact without further guidance by Where enclosed container down comers are used to rapidly conduct spilled LNG away from critical areas, they shall be sized for anticipated liquid flow and vapor formation rates. The future standards editions should propose some design guidance on that subject. Inlets and Outlets Penetrations. A common spread idea is that in a double, full or membrane tank, any outlet/inlet should be made via the roof.

PS4-3.10

Paper PS4-3

Looking more in detail in the various standards, the only standards which are strictly prohibiting the inlets/outlets via the base or walls are EN 1473 (1997) [6.2.3.] and the draft prEN 1473 (2005) [6.3.3]. The BS 7777 (1993) [Part 1, C3.2] is mentioning the risk of external leakage to the atmosphere can be minimized by : a) avoiding all connections on the tank below the maximum liquid level; b) where such connections are unavoidable, limiting both their number and size The draft prEN 14620 (2003) [Part 1, 7.1.6.1] is mentioning For membrane tanks, inlets and outlets shall only be routed via the roof of the tank. For other tanks, any connection to the primary and secondary container shall be kept to a minimum and is adding All inlets and outlets should preferably be made via the roof of the tank. The NFPA 59A (2006) [5.2.2.7] is mentioning Double or full containment containers shall have no pipe penetrations below the liquid level. LNG Tightness of Secondary Container. The standards are variously considering the secondary container tightness requirements. The liner function is not understood in the same way by all standards. The BS 7777 (1993) [Part 3, 6.7.2] recommends the use of a cryogenic liner by Where contact with a product occurs as a result of spillage/or leakage, the material of liners and membrane should be selected to withstand the product temperature. The BS is making a clear distinction between the liner located above and below the minor spillage level. This point obviously is stressing the need for a clear and agreed definition of the minor leak. The draft prEN 14620 [Part 1, 7.1.5] considers the tightness of a prestressed concrete outer tank, without a liquid tight liner, providing an adequate minimum compression zone and the limitation of the crack width. For secondary container made of prestressed concrete, the EN 1473 (1997) [6.2.2] is limiting his requirement to the following: the temperature of the prestress cables shall remain compatible with the strength of the maximum hydrostatic head. Furthermore this standard is mentioning in the same paragraph: LNG tightness of the secondary container shall be ensured by , concrete with lining, . The requirement of the draft prEN 1473 (2005) [6.3.2] is somehow similar to the one of the EN 1473 (1997), but le word liner, associated with concrete, has been cancelled and a paragraph requiring the use of a thermal protection, where rigid base/wall connection exists, has been added. The requirements of the NFPA 59A (2006) [5.2.2.5] [7.2.1.5].about the functions of the impoundments and the suitability of the design for exposure to low temperature resulting from a leakage, are very general ones Minimum Compressive Zone and Minimum Compressive Stresses in Secondary Containers. One of the key elements, pushed forward by some standards and by many
PS4-3.11

Paper PS4-3

ITBs, for enhancing the secondary container tightness, is the minimum residual compressive stress associated with the residual compression zone in case of inner container leakage. The BS 7777 (1993) [part 3, 8.7.2] is requiring a minimum average compressive stress of 1.0 MPa in the principal directions of the prestressing but is not mentioning the extent of the residual compressing zone to be considered when combining the thermal stresses with other externally and internally induced stresses. Many ITBs are more accurate in the definitions and very often impose a minimum compressive stress of 1.0 MPa in the principal directions of the prestressing on a residual compressing zone extending to 10% of the wall thickness. The draft prEN 14620 [Part 3, 6.5.2.2] is considering a minimum thickness of the compressive zone of 100 mm as well as some limitation of the concrete tensile stress depending of the concrete quality and the actual bending and axial stresses. Outer Container Cracks Opening Limitations. This criterion, which is a source of touchy discussions with Owners and inspectors, is poorly handled by the standards. Some ITBs are extremely severe in terms of allowable crack opening and in terms of number of criteria for various locations along the tank. Some others are simply referring to standard building codes. This point is somehow more delicate since generally no difference is made in terms of time evolution, measurement technique, relation with the concrete behaviour and mechanical stress-strain effects. The crack width opening and extent at the bottom of the outer tank wall is a common subject of concern, specifically with Owners who are not familiar with the concrete constructions and who are very sensitive to any type of crack. The only standard which is giving dedicated (brief) information is the Draft prEN 14620 [Part3, 6.5.2.1] The crack width shall be based on environmental site conditions, but in no case > 0.25 mm. The future standards should be more leading on that subject, taking in account the very specific nature of an outer containment versus other building standards.
Miscellaneous Design Criteria

Allowable Settlement of Outer Containments. Many ITBs are using as reference for the differential settlement limits, the one mentioned in the BS 7777 (1993) [Part 3, 7.5.4]. This standard is the only one giving limits (for guidance) for the tilt of the tank, the tank floor settlement and the settlement around the periphery of the tank. The other standards are dealing with this topic in general terms. They request, a design which demonstrate the possibility of the tank components to absorb the settlements. , as in the draft prEN 14620 [Part 1, 7.1.9],

PS4-3.12

Paper PS4-3

Hoop Stresses in Case of SSE. The NFPA 59A (2001) [4.1.3.6] and NFPA 59A (2006) [7.2.2.8] are imposing a stress limit check for the prestressed concrete container. The axial tensile and compressive stresses as well as the extreme fibers stresses are limited. The passive and prestressing reinforcement are also subject to this limit check. This approach is more severe than the one allowed by the applicable design codes generally referenced in the other standards. Tank Levels and Volumes Definitions. A certain confusion could exists when using some wording relating to the tank content. The wording Working volume, Tank net capacity, Max useful capacity or Tank gross capacity are commonly used in the ITBs or data sheets, but are seldom clearly defined. This is fundamental when considering the tank capacity and the practical induced dimensions differences by different possible definitions. Another area of possible confusion lies in the definition of the different liquid levels (operating level, minimum level, max design level, ..) as well as the conventional alarms level abbreviations ( LALLL, LAH, LHHA, ). The only standard which is going in few details is the BS 7777 (1993) [Part 1, A.2] when showing on a figure a typical example of a level alarm. The EN 1473 (1997) [6.5.1], the Draft prEN 1473 [6.6.2] and the Draft prEN 14620 (2003) [Part1, 7.2.1.2] are indirectly mentioning some levels when dealing with the instrumentation. The two above subjects are closely linked since the tank capacity is depending of the selected bottom and top liquid reference levels. The relationship between both should appear in the project data sheet but the future standards editions should supply some typical definitions in order to standardize the definitions and the vocabulary. OUTER CONTAINMENT MATERIALS There is a wide range of materials criteria mentioned in the standards and the variation in the degree of details is extremely wide. Among those criteria, for the outer container part, the standards are generally referring to normative references which, in turn, are extensively dealing with the materials. Nevertheless the particular cold temperature aspect of the storage tanks is necessarily mentioned through specific articles in the standards. But the standards are not always very well balanced on a detail point of view when dealing with the reinforcement steel and the concrete.
Reinforcing steel (rebars)

When subjected to low temperature (below -20 according to most of the standards and below -29C according to NFPA 59A) two approaches exist in the standards for what relates to the allowable tensile stresses in the rebars.

PS4-3.13

Paper PS4-3

Reduced Allowable Stress. The NFPA 59A (2001) [4.3.2.3] and NFPA 59A (2006) [7.4.1.3] are requiring some drastic stress limit reductions in the rebars when exposed to LNG temperature under design conditions. This requirement has been relayed by the BS 7777 (1993) [Part 3, 6.3.3] as an alternative solution but is explicitly mentioning the uneconomical design consequence of that limitation. Non-Reduced Allowable Stress. The BS 7777 (1993) [6.6.3 and 6.6.4] is nevertheless considering the use, at normal stress level, of rebars meeting ductility and toughness criteria. These criteria are to be demonstrated by a tensile testing campaign conducted on unnotched and notched rebars at the design temperature. The criteria are mainly comparing the results of unnotched and notched specimens in terms of tensile strength and of plastic elongation. The draft prEN 14620 [Part 3, A.3] is also considering the use, at normal stress level, of rebars meeting ductility and toughness criteria. The testing procedure and the notching of the rebars are similar to the one of the BS but the criteria are slightly different. This Annex A of the prEN is informative. The differences between the BS and the prEN are nevertheless relevant in terms of rebar selection on the steel market and, consequently, on the cost of the wall reinforcement. The differences of the test results criteria, under cold conditions, are highlighted in the Table 6 below.
Table 6. Cold conditions tests differences between BS 7777 and prEN 14620
BS 7777 (1993) [Part 3, 6.3.4.2] Each specimen should demonstrate a percentage of elastic elongation of at least 3% Unnotched rebars Draft prEN 14620 (2003) [Part 3, A.3] Each specimen should demonstrate a percentage of plastic elongation of at of at least 5 % Yield strength should be at least 1.15 times the minimum yield strength used in the design The percentage of plastic elongation over a section, with a minimum gauge length of 100 mm, should be not less than 1 % NSR should be >= 1 NSR should be >= 1

Notched rebars

Notch Sensitivity Ratio (NSR)

Concrete

Most of the standards are requiring a concrete which is suitable for the low design temperature, but the information about the requested criteria, the tests procedure and the sampling frequencies are rather poorly described, as shown in Table 7 below.

PS4-3.14

Paper PS4-3

Table 7. Criteria for concrete subject to low temperature

Low temperature performance
The concrete mix should be such that concrete has acceptable properties with respect to behaviour at low temperature [Part 3, 6.4]

Testing campaign at low temperature

Where the concrete can be subject to freeze/thaw cycles, tests should be carried out to demonstrate the suitability [Part 3, 6.4]

Sampling frequency

Use of low temperature properties

BS 7777

EN 1473

one cycle at -196C, 20 freezing/thawing cycles [C.1.1]

Every quarter of concrete tank wall, or every 5 000 m3 of concrete and at each change in the concrete formula

Draft prEN 1473 API 620 APPENDIX Q Any portion of the outer surface area of an LNG container that accidentally could be exposed to low temperatures resulting from the leakage of LNG or shall be intended for such temperatures or otherwise protected from the effect of such exposure [4.1.2.5] Idem [7.2.1.5]

NFPA 59A (2001)

Tests on concrete shall be carried out for the compressive strength and coefficient of contraction at the projected low temperature[4.3.3.1]

Allowable stresses for normal design consideration shall be based on room temperaturespecified minimum strength value [4.3.2.2]

NFPA 59A (2006)

Idem [7.4.2.1]

Idem [7.4.1.2] When adequate testing data is available, the low temperature properties may be utilized [Part3, A.1]

Draft prEN 14620

It has to be noted that the EN 1473 (1997) [C1.1] does not supply the criteria linked to the low temperature testing campaign, but mentions the tests to be performed for verification of compliance with the specifications.

PS4-3.15

Paper PS4-3

Most of the ITBs require a testing campaign similar to the one of the EN 1473, but with a single prequalification testing and not a routine testing campaign (which is understandable taking in account the cost and time schedules for such a campaign). The future editions of the standards should supply some testing procedures and criteria specifically devoted to the concrete subject to low temperature qualification. CONCLUSION Though some examples of typical requirements mentioned by the standards and by the ITBs, there is enough evidence that the standards do not cover sufficiently or in contradictory manner some of the normative needs. They do however open the door to ITBs own specification/requirements. In turn, this lack of normative references generates during the projects life, from the FEED up to the mechanical completion, some costly clarification process and change orders. By its very nature a standard should be a vehicle of communication for producers and users. It should serve as a common language, defining quality and establishing criteria. The existing standards should be reinforced and possibly should converge towards new standards. Those new international standards should allow enhancing the collaboration between LNG main actors from various countries, owners, designers and contractors In order to reduce post EPC award clarification or change orders and to reach the market needs, these new international standards must focus on all stages of the tanks life from the design up to the maintenance but also to the intermediate stages of construction and to the operation. New concepts are proposed by engineering/construction companies and should be validated and certified according to comprehensive and well recognized standards that in turn should be endorsed by countries concerned by the design, construction and operation of the Refrigerated Liquefied Gas industry development.

PS4-3.16