API Tank Study

EngineeringManger
(Mechanical)
To all,
25 Nov 03
13:41
With
regardof
to"Cone"
API-650,
bottomed
storage tanks....
The choice
vsflat
"Dome"
roof construction
is usually determined by the product to
be stored. The Dome roof construction is a lot more expensive and usually used when the
Iproduct
am aware
that
API-650
coversan
tanks
internal
pressures)gas.
to 2.5 psig...and
to be
stored,
requires
inertwith
or purge
(blanketing
IDomed
am aware
a domed is
roof
configuration
somewhat
morestorage
expensive
than
a cone roof
roofthat
construction
also
used on midissize
(diameter)
tanksthis
and
is
frequently
used
for
liquids
with
slightly
higher
vapor
pressure
than
water
or-fuel
construction can reduce the mass (& cost) of roof structure support requirements
again it
oil....
is a designers choice.
By
objective
criteria
should I recommend
use ofona API
"domed
roof" storage tank over
Thewhat
design
of the roof
construction
is usually based
650 recommendations,
i.e. a
"cone-roof"
configuration
? etc. - as few designers are willing to undertake the
internal pressure
limitations,
responsibility of "independent" design.
Is there a recommended vapor pressure based criteria ?
Trust this is of value - Allen Botha (713) 910 3773

I have asked this question on several enginerring bulletin boards and have only recieved
vague feeling and recollections. I have also reviewed Phillip Myers "Storage Tank
Handbook" looking for an answer to this question
Is there any in-house company based criteria developed that can be shared ?
Thank You.....
MJC
As the use of gas blanketing systems increases I am receiving more inquiries for higher
operating pressures for shop fabricated storage tanks. The most common sizes are 750 BBL
(15'-6" diameter, 1000 BBL (17'-3" diameter) and 2000 BBL (23'-6" diameter) tanks to be
supplied with operating pressures ranging from 8 oz to 16 oz.
I realize that the API 650 code in basically for larger storage tank than these, but can the
same principles in this code be applied to smaller storage tanks in order to meet customers
requests. Some of the principles I refer to are anchoring and compression ring design.
Any information on this subject would be greatly appreciated.
IFRs (Petroleum)
21 Dec 03
0:10
Once you exceed API 650 pressure (2.5 psi), you are best served by using API 620. Is the 8
oz to 16 oz a pressure per square inch, per square foot, or what? API 650 works for small
tanks as well as large - there is no diameter limit that I know of. I would be cautious when
using API 650 to design a frangible shell-to-roof joint as the failure mechanism is quite
different for small tanks such as yours.
merton (Petroleum)
22 Dec 03
13:02
All the pressures I had indicated in the original post are per square inch.
Thanks to IFRs for the reply.
I agree that the frangible characteristics set down by API 650 are difficult to meet on small
tanks. For inbreathing and outbreathing I would probably use pressure vacuum relief
valves and emergency pressure relief valves sized as per API 2000.
Compression ring of api 620

An API 620 tank, diameter is 12000mm,design pressure is 0.02MPa, hydro test(full water)
pressure is 0.025MPa and the compressure ring between the wall and roof is ok in the
design condition, but because of full water hydro. test ,the compressure ring is not safe, so
needa a larger size compressure ring.
Is there any other way to resolve the problem instead of modify the size of compressure
ring?
CHD01 (Mechanical)
9 Dec 03
15:49
An API 620 tank is NOT supppose to be water-filled for the hydro since API requires that
during hydro the water level NOT exceel 1-1-1/2" above the tangent line for the tank and
the domed roof.
The more you learn, the less you are certain of.
Api 650 tank for negative pressure

Is there a minimum vacuum allowed with API-620?
JoeTank (Structural)
3 Mar 04
18:43
API-620 does not have rules for the design of the tank for vacuum conditions.
Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
www.tankindustry.com
clp (Mechanical)
4 Mar 04 8:27
Steve,
API-620 does not have rules for vacuum conditions....does that mean that it is not allowed
or that with proper venting and good engineering practice you can design it for vacuum?
Are the API codes typically pretty black & white or is there a lot of grey area?...I'm not sure
where to draw the line and I fear it will get me in trouble.
Respectfully,
clp
5 Mar 04
10:03
I don't have API-620 on hand, so I will give you a general answer. There is a statement in
the Standard that says that a tank that meets API-620 is suitable for a vacuum of 1 inch or
1/2 ounce (or whatever the tiny value is) of negative pressure. It is a minimal number that
matches the typical ratings for pressure relief valves.
That's it. Nothing else. If you design an API-620 tank to withstand a higher vacuum you
are on your own. Sound engineering principles would have to be used.
Can a tank designed for a vacuum above the nominal limit set by API-620 still meet the
Standard's requirements? Interesting question. I say yes, but that is a question you may
wish to put to the API Subcommittee on Pressure Vessel & Tanks. It would spur an
interesting debate I'm sure.
Every API-620 tank for LNG, LPG and Ammonia service that I have been associated with
has been designed of a vacuum condition far above the nominal limit of API-620. Good
engineering practice was used for the design.
You might be interested to know that API-650 has an appendix in development that will add
rules for the design of tanks subjected to external pressure.
Steve Braune
LSThill (Mechanical)
5 Mar 04
12:46
Team Members & Steve Braune

The LNG industry accepts European Standrd EN1473 for the definition of LNG storage tanks
by containment type.
Europen Standard EN1472, 1997, Installation and equipemnt for liquefied natural gas Design of onshore installation.
United State (US) regulation NFPA59A does not classify LNG tanks based on containment
and tanks are clasified as "single" -or "double wall" as per API 620 Appendix Q.
NFPA59A, National Fire Protection Agency,Standard for the production, storage andhandling
of liquefied Natural GAS LNG, 2001 edition.
American Petrolum Institute Standard 620, Design and construction of large welded lowpressure storage tanks, 10th edition, Febuary 2002.
In addition, LNG facilitied in the US and US protectroatermust following federal regulation
49CFR193 whick require theouter or secondary cotainer be sized.
49CFR193, Code of Fedueral Regulations, 49CFR Department of Transportation, Subtite B.
Chapter I, Subchapter D-Pipeline Safety, Part 193-Liquified Ntural
Gas Gacilities-Federal Safety Standard.
Leonard Thill
www.thill.biz
EGT01 (Chemical)
5 Mar 04
15:02
I can't speak much to the mechanical design of storage tanks since that is not my field and
I can't say I've had much experience in specifying storage tanks. But I've had a need to
become familiar with the code requirements of these vessels in order to size relief devices
for them. Here's what I've found
From API 650

3.2.4 External Pressure
This standard does not contain provisions for the design of tanks subject to partial internal
vacuum; however, tanks that meet the minimum requirements of this standard may be
subjected to a partial vacuum of 0.25 kPa (1 in. of water) of water pressure.
From API 620
5.10.5.2
This standard does not contain provisions for the design of cylindrical sidewalls that are
subject to partial internal vacuum in tanks constructed for the storage of gases or vapors
alone. However, cylindrical sidewalls of vertical tanks designed in accordance with these
rules for storing liquids (with the thickness of upper courses not less than specified in
5.10.4 for the tank size involved and with increasing thickness from top to bottom as
required for the combined gas and liquid loadings) may be safely subjected to a partial
vacuum in the gas or vapor space not exceeding 1 ounce per square in. with the operating
liquid level in the tank at any stage from full to empty. The vacuum relief valve or valves
shall be set to open at a smaller partial vacuum so that the 1-ounce partial vacuum will not
be exceeded when the inflow of air (or gas) through the valves is at the maximum
specified rate.
As Steve points out, practically all of what I've seen for vacuum ratings exceeds the
minimum allowed for in the codes. What seems to elude me is when reviewing the vessel
documentation, I can't say that I remember seeing where a method is spelled out as to
how they accomplish a design beyond the scope of the code. Typically what I find is that
the tank was built to API 650 or API 620 with a stated pressure rating and stated vacuum
rating. But that may be off the subject.
Anyway, I happened to visit API's website
(http://committees.api.org/standards/tech/reti.html) the other day and found they
have a technical interpretation for API 620 that may be helpful. Search for the
interpretation regarding storage of methanol with a pressure range of +/- 35 inches water
Api 620 /650 vapour space

For API-620 & 650 is the vapor space not less than 2% of total liquid no matter what the
content?
IFRs (Petroleum)
4 Mar 04
19:09
The vapor space is the entire volume above the liquid surface.
5 Mar 04 9:50
API-650 does not have specific requirements on vapor space volume. It is silent on the
matter
Steve Braune
Api 650 manhole restriction?

clp (Mechanical)
3 Mar 04
16:52
Is there a minimum size manhole for API-650?

3 Mar 04
18:42
There are no requirements in API-650 to even have a manhole. There is a table of standard
MH details in the Standard, the smallest of which is 20 inch diameter.
Steve Braune
clp (Mechanical)
4 Mar 04 8:30
API-620 requires a min of two 20" manholes - correct?

jte (Mechanical)
4 Mar 04
19:58
clpCode/Standard requirements notwithstanding, do the right thing and provide at least a 24"
manway. Anything smaller is a pain to get through, and some folks won't fit at all. The
added cost of a decent size manway won't even be noticed a year after you have bought
the tank - but the added size will be appreciated for the life of the tank.
jt
IFRs (Petroleum)
4 Mar 04
20:45
Doesn't OSHA (or common sense) require 2 menas of egress from any confined space? I
know that if I were in a tank and needed to get out because of a fire or other hazard, I
would want to leave by the closest means and not have to cross hte hazard to get
there. Also, ventilating the tank is easier with two manways.
5 Mar 04 9:39
Guys,
You're getting carried away here. The posted question was limited to the API Standard, not
OSHA, not what's right.
API-650 does not directly address OSHA issues, because not all tanks have to meet
OSHA. This is an international standard, so not all API tanks are built in the USA.
The "common sense" part comes from the Purchaser's requirements. The Purchaser
specifies the common sense stuff.
jte... Speaking as a short fat guy with a beard, I do not think a 24"MH is enough. I prefer a
30"MH and write all specs that way.
IFR's... I always spec two MHs in the shell (preferably 30"). Multiple roof MHs also,
especially if tank will ve lined. The painters have to mount a fan on a roof MH for
ventilation.
Steve Braune
Api 650 min temp?

clp (Mechanical)
3 Mar 04
16:11
Is there a minimum temp restriction with API-650?

3 Mar 04
16:15
There is a minimum temperature permitted for every grade of steel material listed in API650. The limit is based on thickness, chemistry, heat treatment, supply condition and
possibly impact testing. It's a simple question with complicated answers. Did you have
something more specific in mind?
Steve Braune
clp (Mechanical)
3 Mar 04
16:47
Steve,
Basically I was wondering if there was a set min temp or if it was material dependant....you
answered my question - thank you.
clp
Api 620 pressure limit flat bottom?

MJCronin (Mechanical)
1 Mar 04
10:10
To all,
I am aware of the 2.5 to 15 psig pressure design limits for tanks designed to API-620.
What are the practical pressure and diameter limits for flat bottomed tank design ?
At what combination of pressure and diameter make a flat bottomed tank unecononomical
and make a tank with two dished ends a better choice ? (assume carbon steel at ambient
temperature ?
For example, assume a 12 foot diameter tank, 33,000 gallons designed to 14 psig......is an
API-620 design (flat bottom) or a "non-coded" ASME-VIII design (horizontal with dished
heads) more econonomical ?
Is there some general criteria that could be used/shared here ?

Thank you for your input....
MJC
3 Mar 04
16:20
Please see my answer to your identical question posted in another forum.

Steve Braune
Api 620 ss material?

Can stainless steel materials be used with API-620?
3 Mar 04
16:18
Yes, for tanks constructed to the requirements of Appendix R or Q. The API Sub Committee
on Presure Vessels and Tanks has an ad-hoc Task Group addressing the general issue of
using SS materials for basic API-620 tanks.
Steve Braune
Api 650 dome roof allowed?

clp (Mechanical)
3 Mar 04
16:09
Is a domed roof allowed with API-650?

3 Mar 04
16:13
Yes, dome roofs are permitted for API-650 tanks.

Design equations are given in the Standard for simple plate domes. Structural domes are
permitted, but design rules are not provided. Aluminum geodesic domes are also
permitted and are covered in Appendix G
Steve Braune
________________________________________________________-Api 650 roof design?

anousone (Civil/Environme)
24 Feb 04
7:44
Hi,
the use of a frangible joint for the roof to shell junction is recommended by API 650. That is
to say that the roof will act like a venting surface in case of an explosion in the tank. What
is the main reason for this? Isn't it possible to optimize the venting surfaces (according to
NFPA 68 for example)on the roof, without having to consider the whole roof as a venting
section? Does anyone have information regarding this subject?
Thanks.
Find A Job or Post a Job Opening Click Here.
24 Feb 04
8:24
You are reading way too much into API-650 on this issue. The frangible roof calculations
concept is intended to protect the tank in the event of a pool fire, not an internal
explosion. There are no concepts of "vent surface" involved. It's just the plain old idea
that the roof-to-shell junction will fail before the tank shell-to-bottom joint is uplifted. The
resulting failure of the joint is assumed to be sucfficient to vent the tank.
API-650 does not recommend the frangible roof concept. It is neutral on that issue. It
requires that the tank be protected from overpressure for the emergency condition of a
pool fire. The designer MAY count on frangible roof behavior (if verified by calculations) or
an emergency venting system may be provided.
Again, API-650 has no provisions for venting an explosive event.
Steve Braune
How to check the failure vacuum pressure of api tank

would you please tell me how to calculate the failure vacuum pressure of api tank?
tonycola (Mechanical)
30 Apr 03
14:26
The allowable vacuum pressure for an API 650 tank is 1 inch water, and it is 1 oz per
square inch for API 620 tanks. If additional vacuum rating is desired, then calculation
should be performed to verify that the structural integrity of the tank is sufficient for the
desired vacuum.
Generally accepted good engineering practice should be used to perform this analysis.
SSC2002 (Mechanical)
21 Oct 03
11:53
tonycola
Where do you get the allowable vacuum pressure values for API 620 from? Is it by
calculation or in a clause?
tonycola (Mechanical)
12 Dec 03
14:24
See API-620, 10th ed. paragraph 5.10.5.2

lmg (Industrial)
23 Jan 04
18:34
Since you can use employ the Good Engineering Practices, one option would be to work
under ASME VIII / Div 1, UG-28.
23 Jan 04
19:59
The storage tank industry (at least the field erected tank side of the industry) has not
generally embraced ASME VIII as the factor of safety is a bit high for their liking. When
using ASME VIII some tank designers have used the ASME UG28 procedure, but have
lowered the factor of safety. In addition to the ASME VIII approach, I suggest you consider
the Steel Plate Fabricators Handbook. Also, you may be interested to know that API's
Subcommittee on Pressure Vessels and Tanks is developing an appendix for vacuum design
of ASTs.
Steve Braune
Api 650 flat bottom

clp (Mechanical)
22 Apr 04
10:35
Please help me with some clarification of the API-650 code for flat bottom tanks. It is my
understanding that API-650 is for flat or flat sloped, ground supported bottoms only. So if I
have a tank that has a 1:12 pitch, cone-shaped, ground supported bottom this would fall
under API-620, not 650 - correct?
clp
IFRs (Petroleum)
22 Apr 04
11:51
API 650 is for tanks with internal pressure approximating atmospheric pressure (not
exceeding 2.5 psig), whose entire bottom is uniformly supported and whose operating
temperature is lower than 200DegF [90DegC}. API 620 is for tanks designed for higher
internal pressures as well as other conditions outside of 650. If your tank is low pressure,
use 650.
clp (Mechanical)
IRF,
22 Apr 04
12:46
This is an atmospheric, API code, 14 ft dia tank and I'm concerned about fitting it within a
specific code so that it can be stamped. I question the use of API-650 only because it is not
a flat-bottom tank. I can not find a clear definition for API-650 tank bottoms. In Appendix J
(J.3.2) of the API-650 code it refers to flat bottoms and in 3.5 it refers to annular bottoms
(assuming flat). What you are saying is that since it is low pressure and ground supported
it should be 650 even though the bottom is cone-shaped, annular bottom (1:12 pitch)?
This is a grey area in my mind - can anyone clarify this code?
clp
22 Apr 04
13:20
clp,
If the tank bottom is supported by a foundation or grillage it fits within the basic
construction scope of API-650. Tank bottoms almost always have a slope for drainage or
process reasons. We still call them flat bottom tanks eventhough bottom is only nominally
flat. I see no problem with a 1:12 slope if it is uniformly supported by the foundation.
Steve Braune
Api 520 allowable over pressure?

MichD (Chemical)
14 Apr 04
4:22
Does anyone have any info. on the following:

1. What is the basis for the 10% allowable overpressure specified by API520? Is it to do
with the 0.9 derating factor used by vendors to determine capacity?
2. What is the basis for 21% allowable overpressure for 'fire case' relief valves.
3. Why is a higher overpressure allowed for fire case relief valves?
I would appreciate anyone's comments on the above.
Check Out Our Whitepaper Library. Click Here.
EGT01 (Chemical)
14 Apr 04
15:05
As an obvious novice, you may find it more beneficial to find an experienced associate with
which you can address your relief system design questions. There will be many yet to
come.
As with most instructions, it is generally best to read the entire selection before
proceeding. In the Foreword of RP-520 you will find that it is intended to supplement the
information contained in Section VIII, Pressure Vessels, of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code. If you don't already have access to a copy, then some relief valve vendors
include excerpts in handbooks that they offer. For example:
http://www.andersongreenwood.com/literature.asp
The key point to remember is you need to have an understanding of the construction codes
for the equipment you are trying to protect from overpressure. There are many codes to
which equipment may be constructed and the recommended practices of API RP-520 will
not be suitable for all equipment.

More specifically, to address your questions, careful that you don't confuse overpressure
for relief valve sizing with the pressure increase allowed for the equipment
(accumulation). As it happens, the 10% and 21% allowable overpressures are limitations
only when the relief device is set at the equipment MAWP. Vessels built to ASME Section
VIII are limited to 10% accumulation for non-fire relief cases and 21% accumulation for fire
relief cases.
I'm afraid I can't say how the allowances for accumulation have come to be but likelihood
of occurrence may have been a factor and they are less than the test pressure as called for
by ASME Section VIII.
MichD (Chemical)
14 Apr 04
22:37
EGT01,
1. Apologies, code does not prohibit one from sizing relief valves based on overpressure
higher than 10% (21% for fire)if set pressure < MAWP.
2. My original question however was more one of curiousity as to the basis of these values
(10% and 21% ACCUMULATION)which is a question that more experienced associates
around my office were not able to answer...
EGT01 (Chemical)
15 Apr 04
12:07
Well, that's a relief! (pun intended)

Apparently you are more knowledgeable concerning the subject than I understood from
your question.
Since the basis of the allowable pressure excursions comes from ASME you might want to
think about rewording your question and posting it in the ASME Code forum. It would be
interesting to see if anyone knows where the 10% and 21% came from.
As additional comment, at one time, it seems I've seen allowable accumulation for fire to
be only 20%. In fact API 620 follows the 10% and 20% allowables. I think it has been just
in recent years that ASME went from 20% to 21%.
Good luck in finding your answer.
15 Apr 04
21:29
I've always took the 21% increase as simply an additional 10% increase on the original
10% increase. For example 1.10 x 1.10 = 1.21.
Steve Braune
Legs on api 650 tank?
clp (Mechanical)
24 Mar 04
16:53
Would someone please verify if the following is true (I believe it is but I am starting to
doubt myself and need to hear it from someone else.)
API-650 is for flat bottom tanks only - is this true?
If an API tank has legs it would be an API-620 tank not 650 - true?
one more question....can an API "code" tank be made up of multiple codes? I have a
customer who wants a mix of codes but still wants it stamped....is that allowable?
thank you in advance for your clarification to the above.
29 Mar 04
13:47
An API tank on legs? Not API-650, it's for flat bottom tanks only. API-620 may be used for
tanks on legs. You may not mix-and-match Codes for a tank if you intend to put an API
nameplate on the finished tank. It should be either all API-650 or all API-620. By contrast,
you may pick and choose the appropriate Codes sections when providing a tank as nonCode.
Steve Braune
7 Apr 04
12:50
clp,
One other option that you may consider.....
Many process engineering organizations specify smaller, vertical axis tanks (operating
under 15 psig) to be designed, constucted, inspected and tested to ASME-VIII....but not
ASME Code stamped.
Heads on these tanks are typically, F&D or ellipsodal and the tanks are supported on
legs....
The number, design and size of legs can typically be supplied by the fabricator, but some
firms have thier own standards.
Talk with a large tank/pressure vessel fabricator with an ASME Code stamp
Try these people...
http://www.precisionstainless.com/
Let us know what you decide......
MJC
Api 620 knuckle radius
clp (Mechanical)
15 Mar 04 12:36
Looking for help on how to reinforce a knuckle on a F&D head:API-620 tank
I have a 156" OD tank with a F&D bottom head and legs. The knuckle radius is 4" which is less
that the 6% required per 5.12.3 of the API-620 code book.(6% of 156" is about 9.5") Is there
any way to get around this 6% rule by adding a ring? Or is there a way of proving that the 4"
would be adequate?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
clp
15 Mar 04 21:42
There is no way around the 6% knuckle rule of API-620.
If this were a non-API-620 tank, one could calculate the T1 and T2 membrane components at
various locations on the knuckle and use the average as a means of estimating the hoop
compression in the knuckle region. With just a 4% knuckle, I suspect that the results will not be
good compared to allowable compression limits. In this case a stiffener would be useful.
Not withstanding that problem, there will be very high secondary bending stresses in the
meridional direction. A shell analysis program would be required to calculate the magnitude of
the bending in this case. You could also check into the ASME VIII Code appendices for design
formulas for non-6% knuckles, but it would just be a first approximation of the stress levels.
And, when it's all over and done, it's still a non-API Code vessel.
Steve Braune
Api 650 domed roof allowed?

clp (Mechanical)
Is a domed roof allowed with API-650?
3 Mar 04
16:09
3 Mar 04
16:13
Yes, dome roofs are permitted for API-650 tanks.

Design equations are given in the Standard for simple plate domes. Structural domes are
permitted, but design rules are not provided. Aluminum geodesic domes are also
permitted and are covered in Appendix G
Steve Braune
API 2000 - API 650 Fire Venting

Mondolf (Chemical)
10 Sep 04
21:59
For safety devices the overpressures indicated as 20% and 10% above maximum
allowable working pressure apply to API 620 tanks only. As indicated in 4.5.1.1.4, these
conditions do not apply to API 650 tanks where the internal design pressure should not be
exceeded under any normal operating condition.
I understand that "Fire" wouldn't be a "normal operation condition". There for, if the tank is
API650 can I assume an overpressure (let's say 10%) above the MAWP of the tank (in my
case design pressure) or shall I fix the set point to a lower figure so I never pass the MAWP?
Best regards,
11 Sep 04
20:30
The MAWP deterimed per API-650, Appendix F may be limited by compressive hoop
stresses in the shell-to-roof connection or by uplift of the tank bottom. When checking the
emergency venting requirements of API-200 (a surrounding pool fire, not an internal fire),
the MAWP should not be exceeded under any circumstances. API-650 is silent about
overpressure; therfore, I would not assume that it's permissible.
Steve Braune
Joint efficiency & Radiography - API 650

kvbalu (Mechanical)
13 Aug 04
13:11
What is the relationship between Joint efficiency and Radiography per API 650 ? Can a Joint
efficiency of 1.00 be used for design and Spot radiography be applied during
construction. What is the normal engineering practice ?
18 Aug 04
23:55
The basic design requirements of API-650 are to use a joint efficiency of 1.0 and the RT
requirements of Section 6. The extent of RT is based upon the plate thickness. At the low
end of the scale (thickness of 3/8 and less) only a limited number of RT shots are
required. At the high end (thickness greater than 1 inch) full RT is required.
There are two additional options available when specified by purchaser. Appendix A uses
less RT than the basic Standard with E = 0.85. When no RT is performed E = 0.70.
The term "joint efficiency" is probably not the best term to use. Perhaps "quality factor"
would be better, but that's another topic.
Steve Braune
API 650 Tanks-Corrosion of Annular Plate

nrp12345 (Mechanical)
2 Aug 04
5:29
We have 2 nos 20 Mtr dia Naphtha Storage tanks designed as per API650. These were
installed in 1965-66. Till about two years ago we were monitoring corrosion of the external
portion of the bottom annular plate. The tanks were moth balled for two years and
attempts are now being made to rehabilitate the tanks. We observe extensive corrosion of
the annular plate.
While API prohibits patch work repair of the annular plate can anyone in a similiar situation
share his experiences with us and tell us what their quick fix solutions were?
Many Thanks
Eng-Tips Forums is Member Supported. Click Here to donate.
3 Aug 04
13:23
nrp,
Are you aware that there are API standards on storage tank assesment and repair ?
There are many firms that will provide objective, third-party review and propose repair
solutions.
Google "storage tank", consultant, repair and API
Review your results.......
MJC
apiguy (Mechanical)
4 Aug 04
22:36
Have you gone inside the tank and inspected the critical zone area? Ultrasonics or MFE will
reveal the extent of your underside corrosion. If there is no seal between the foundation
and the bottom plate extension, corrosion is inevitable! Most of the time though the scale
corrosion you see at the very edge does not extend very far under the tank. Proper
cleaning of the area and a good seal usually does the trick.
The APIGUY....
chicopee (Mechanical)
9 Aug 04
16:53
nrp12345- according to API 650 section 10, the bottom annular plate can be repaired w/
certain conditions. Have you explored all the possibilities offered in section 10?
JohnGP (Mechanical)
17 Aug 04
1:30
nrp12345,
Further to MJCronin's response, API STD 653 "Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Reconstruction" provides guidance on repair of tank bottoms (and remainder of tank),
including the use and limitations regarding welded-on patch plates.
Regards,
John
12'-0" diameter 400 BBL Storage Tank set @ 5psi

working pressure
merton (Petroleum)
29 Jun 02
23:32
I received a request for a 400 barrel storage tank set at a 5 psi pressure rating. The
original design code specified API 12D. I explained that his code does not cover a 400 BBL
tank and definitely not a tank with a 5 psi working pressure. I suggested that this piece of
equipment be treated as a pressure vessel and be constructed to the set of codes
governing this design.
I inquired if anyone had submitted a tank designed to 5 psi and there was one. The design
code was a API 12F/650/620. I don't believe you can mix and match these codes to suit a
specific project.
I realize that 12F and 650 cannot be used to design a tank to 5 psi pressure. And as I
interpret API 620, it is for large storage tank with low internal pressures, so a small tank
such as this would not meet the requirements as laid out in the specification.
Sorry, to ramble on. I am just wondering if my interpretation of these codes is correct and
to confirm if I led this gentleman in the right direction. Any addition suggestions or
interpretations would certainly be appreciated.
Thank you.
1 Jul 02 10:15
butelja (Mechanical)
I would lean towards either API 620 or ASME Sec. VIII, Div. 1. As I read the scope of API
620, it says it is for "large" tanks, but I don't see any definition of large. So long as you are
< 15 PSIG and < 250 F, I don't think this tank is precluded from API 620.
Then again, I'm married to an attorney, so maybe I'm just hung up on looking for loopholes.
:)
1 Jul 02 12:40
merton,
400 barrels eh ?.... Hmmmmmm thats about 17,000 gallons which would fit (about) in a
horizontal tank 12' diameter and about 20 feet long......a shop built tank
You could get such a tank designed, tested and certified in accordance with API 620
OR designed, fabricated and tested to ASME VIII (without the ASME code stamp)
The price, either way would be about the same....
Talk with the people at Modern Welding in Newark, Ohio (www.modweldco.com) and they
will help you out. A nice guy by the name of Tom Griggs has been very helpful to me...
Good luck
MJC
twjag (Structural)
18 Jul 02
20:27
API 620 is applicable to your tank. The term "large tanks" is somewhat irrelevant. API 620
is a design by analysis Code, as opposed to API 650, which is a design by formula Code. API
620 does not provide rules for external pressure. If you have external pressure, use the
rules from ASME Section VIII, Div 1. For external loads (vacuum or live load) on conical
roofs, use ASME for apex angles covered, or API 650 for flatter slopes.
JOHNPIA2 (Mechanical)
10 May 04
10:22
I took a quick look ar all API standards mentioned above. I do not see how these can be
used to design horizontal tanks. They all specify they apply to VERTICAL tanks (see scope
section); API 620 applies to tanks havind a single VERTICAL axis of revolution. Am I missing
something?
Would a 12ft dia. x 24ft long, full of water, atmospheric, saddle supported, be made of .
140in thick stainless 304 typical plate? For heads, conical, 75 deg. half-apex angle, and full
rings are used over and between the saddles, to avoid ovalling.
jay165 (Mechanical)
10 May 04
11:21
merton:
In my experience, a tank your size made from CS is slightly cheaper if it is built to ASME
Section VII rather than API 620, even if it is code stamped. Also, I found that if you use
3/8" plate and get the design pressure high enough, your relief valve is much smaller and
you can use an existing LP header for a fire size case rather than a huge discharge line and
atmospheric vent pole.
10 May 04
16:09
JOHNPIA2,
Buried somewhere in API-620 is a statement that it may also be used for horizontal
tanks. It's hard to find, but it's there.
Steve Braune
PAN (Mechanical)
26 Jul 04 1:25
I'm not sure about API Standard for horizontal tank. However, I think the inforamtion below
(Table 1) may be useful.
www.mass.gov/dfs/osfm/freprevention/cmr/527009.pdf
CHD01 (Mechanical)
20 Aug 04
23:57
My experience is that the break point for API versus ASME design is approximately 20 ft
diameter by 20 foot tangent to tangent. Less than 20ft diameter and the advantage is
ASME.
The more you learn, the less you are certain of.
API 650 - Steel Tank Roof Deflection

PEStructural (Structural)
29 Mar 04
14:26
What deflection requirement would you recommend for the rafters of a supported cone roof
on a steel water tank (for DL + LL)? I know UBC states L/240, but this really isn't a
building. Another point to ponder, the only time the full live load of 15 psf would be
applied is under a snow load, so then the deflection wouldn't be seen by the eye.
I have a 87 foot diameter by 27 foot high tank with a column in the center of the tank. I
tried a W8x10 rafter. The stresses are OK, but the deflection is 4.477 in ( L/100 ). The
code states that the friction between the rafters and the roof deck can be used as full
lateral bracing of the compression flange (although there is no welding between
them). The W8x10 beam deflection is 1/2" under its own dead weight for this length. If
there was a wind that applied an uplift force on the top deck, the unbraced length of the
rafter would greatly increase and therefore overstress the beam.
Anyhow, any deflection requirement suggestions?
21 Jun 04
16:29
WOULD YOU BE BETTER OFF UNSING OPEN WEB STEEL BAR JOISTS FOR THE LENGTH IN
QUESTION? AS FAR AS THE DEFLECTION, YOU MAY HAVE TO USE YOUR OWN ENGINEERING
JUDGEMENT. YOU MAY ALSO HAVE TO DIG INTO THE WEB SITES FOR A WATER WORKS
ASSOCIATION WHICH I BELIEVE HAVE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SUCH TANKS.
21 Jun 04
21:50
I have always understood that the 3/4:12 minimum slope of API-650 was based upon
expected deflections of the roof rafters. The intent is to assure a positive drainage slope at
all times.
Steve Braune
Tankman650 (Structural)
12 Jul 04
21:38
I sounds like you have one center pole with the rafters running radial to the side
wall. AWWA has a max. rafter spacing of 84" thus you need 40 rafters. This is a lot to
come together at a center pole.
Generally, you will have a ring of columns and girders midway between the shell and
center ploe to support the ends of the rafters and there by reduce the number of rafters
that rest on the center pole. When you do this you will save a lot of rafter steel and reduce
the deflections.
15 Jul 04 9:09
In API-650, the use of friction for lateral bracing is permitted only for the DL + LL
condition. For the DL only condition, lateral bracing by friction may not be assumed. Your
concern for wind loads and loss of friction would be for the DL only condition.
Regarding the 4+ inches of deflection... the roof rise is excess of 32 inches (assuming a
typical roof rise of 3/4" per foot), so the deflection would not be an obvious problem to me.
Frankly, the W8 sounds quite small. I would seriously doubt the ability to safely eresct
these long, floppy beams. You may need to look a some form of lateral bracing just for
their own dead load.
Steve Braune
Design thickness as minimum plate thickness

KentCaudill (Industrial)
23 Jun 04
13:08
Good Morning All:

The tank is Type 316L stainless steel. In the API 650 calculations the design thickness is a
decimal. Corrosion allowance is not a factor. I intend to order the plate from the plate mill
based on the design decimal thickness. Do I have to add the allowable mill rolling
tolerances to the design thickness to arrive at the purchased thickness? In other words is
the design thickness to be read as an absolute minimum thickness under the API 650
rules? Thanks for your help,
Thanks for your help, Kent.
jlcochran1 (Mechanical)
23 Jun 04
15:34
API-650 paragraph 2.2.1.2.1 states that the edge thickness ordered shall not be less than
the computed design thickness or mimimum permitted thickness.

Par. 2.2.1.2.3 states that whether edge or weight basis is used for ordering an underrun not
more than 0.25mm (0.01 in) from the computed design thickness or minimum permitted
thickness is acceptable.
S.3.2 will send you back to 3.6.1.1 for minimum shell thickness to compare to calculated
design thickness.
As long as your calculated thickness exceeds the minimum permitted thickness you should
be able to order to the calculated thickness without having to add 0.010" mill
undertolerance.
On a side note ASME Section VIII has a similar provision in UG-16(c).
24 Jun 04
12:02
Good Morning jlcochran1:

Thanks for the help. Please clarify the definition of "minimum permitted thickness". Is the
minimum permitted thickness a minimum thicknes specified by the purchaser or how is it
determined?
24 Jun 04
12:24
I interpret minimum permitted thickness as the minimum thickness allowed per code.
Since you are dealing with 316L SS Appendix S would apply. For shell plates paragraph
S.3.2 referenced in my previous post applies. It states than the shell thickness cannot be
less than the nominal plate thickness listed in 3.6.1.1. There you will find a table based on
diameter. 3/16" is the minimum for tanks with a bottom course centerline diameter less
than 50'.
25 Jun 04
13:51
Thanks again. You have been a great help.

26 Jun 04
20:13
www.coade.com API650/653 TANK PROGRAM
OR E-TANK PROGRAM
JeffcoatSmitt (Mechanical)
14 Jul 04 1:11
ETank2000 can be found at www.etank.com
Api 650 standard for diesel fuel

chuckoehler (Mechanical)
9 Nov 04
9:16
I was wondering if API 650 code can be used to store diesel fuel. I always see oil storage
references but never gasoline or diesel fuel. Are there any special requirements for diesel
fuel storage?
9 Nov 04
10:17
chuck,
Yes, API-650 tanks are commonly used to store diesel fuel and other petrochemicals. API650 contains rules for tank design based on the specific gravity of the contents and
matreials selection based on the geographic location of the tank.
Some of the special considerations you must consider for storing diesel fuel are contained
in NFPA-30. Be sure to evaluate tank placement with regardard to occupied buildings and
property lines.
Alternatively, you may want to the use of the UL standards (UL-58 and UL-142)in the tank
specification. Many diesel storage tanks in the USA use these as design standards
My thoughts only...
MJC
API 650-Distance from bottom plate to shell welds

emiro (Mechanical)
6 May 05
8:51
Please advise us. We need to know what is the minimum distance between an annular
plates joint weld and a vertical (shell) plates joint weld.
Please reference the applicable API650 paragraph.
Thank you in advance.
17 May 05
13:03
API-650 does not specify a minimum offset between these two joints.
Steve Braune
API 650 Overturning Toe Pressure

16 Jan 05
3:47
What is the approach/equation to calculate the overturning toe pressure on a concrete
ringwall in a seismic event? I have a 89'x32'H welded steel tank that is in seismic zone 4
and is resting on a concrete ringwall (not bolted down).
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Mike
16 Jan 05
11:23
The seismic analysis of a tank is covered on API-650, Appendix E. You could use the unit
vertical shell load as the load at the top of the ringwall. But, you also need to transfer
some additional moment due to lateral shear times the depth of the wall.
Steve Braune
17 Jan 05
6:12
Thanks for the quick answer Steve! One other question, I assume that I would have to add
to that the DL weights of the water on top of the ringwall and the ringwall itself. Right?
Thanks again.
17 Jan 05
9:07
Yes, the product pressure on the top of the ringwall plus the weight (net weight) of the
ringwall are additive in this case.
Steve Braune
29 Apr 05
23:25
Check out "Aboveground Storage Tanks" by Phillip Myers. his book has a good discussion
of seismic design for both the tank and ringwall.
Jeffcoat Smitt
www.etank.com
www.fteinc.com
Tank Pate thickness__ bottom

jlarocque (Mechanical)
28 Aug 03
9:10
I have a small tank for Vegetable or animal Oil 30 ft dia by 8 ft high need to know if 3/16
plate can be used? API 650 requires normally a minimum of .25 or 6mm is there a way out
for an application that would be inside a building?
28 Aug 03
12:59
It could also be a different API or other related standard
4 Sep 03
22:04
Consider making several smaller tanks that can be shop built and delivered to the site. Use
UL-142 specifications.
9 Sep 03
11:04
Yes but the tank is inside on a concrete base...things APi do not really cover....:)
10 Sep 03
23:20
I am sorry, i don't understand what you just said.

Again, use UL-142 or use stainless steel tank and Appendix S of API650 which allows
3/16".
22 Sep 03
8:43
The new tank is going inside a building...( now wind and snow loads, no exterior corrosion)
and the tank is also sitting on a full concrete pad. API tanks are either on a concrete ring or
on an earth slab.
Skeet6 (Mechanical)
18 Feb 05
11:12
If you refer to API 650, Appendix A. Go to table A-4b, it allows you to have a 3/16" shell
course for a 30 ft diameter 1 shell course tank. Also refer to API 650 3.6.1.1. This refers
you to smallest nominal plate thickness for a given diameter
14 Mar 05
12:07
This is kind of a wacky tank.....isn't it ??

30 foot diameter by 8 foot shell.......about 42,000 gallons
Yet...it is somehow indoors ???
This means that there are no columns within this building with at least 30 foot spans ?
Is this some kind of used vegetable oil storage tank located within a hockey rink ???
Why would you not want to break this volume up into two or three smaller tanks ? Perhaps
two nice horizontal tanks, on saddles.... about 10-12 foot diameter ???
MJC
14 Mar 05
12:49
It's for inside Biodiesel. space is a limiting factor and we need to have the product in one
tank...bio needs to be treated in a warmer space....and we have space for it
21 Mar 05
11:48
API-650 would require a 3/16 (5mm) shell and a 1/4 (6mm) bottom. No exceptions that I
know of.
Steve Braune
7 Apr 05
14:46
Have you considered a steel bolted tank? You can use 12 gage steel (0.1046 in) thick
bottom. The applicable standard is API 12B.
29 Apr 05
22:44
As stated above API-650 Appendix A will allow for a 3/16" shell and 1/4" bottom with no
radiograpy. Depending on roof loads and internal pressure a 3/16" or 1/4" Domed Roof
would work. If a domed roof is too tall, a conical roof is possible. But an unsupported
conical roof with a 2:12 slope would have to be 0.455" thick, so a supported roof would be
more practical.
29 Apr 05
23:09
I didn't see the header. If you're asking about a 3/16" bottom, API-650 Appendix S will
allow this only for stainless steel.
Jeffcoat Smitt
www.etank.com
www.fteinc.com
external floating roof API650

dorios (Mechanical)
26 Apr 05
21:31
hi,
I have an external floating roof 60m dia tank experiencing problems with deformations
possibly because of vapour bubbles underneath. Water accumulation on top exacerbates
the deformation but as soon as the vents are open, the water comes back towards the
central area which to me suggests that the internal vapour pressures are responsible for
this deformation. This is a 5mm pontoon roof, oil tank to API 650 (designed to 0.7 specific
gravity).no product on the tank, seals working perfectly.
Q: what other factors can be responsible for slightly tilting the roof (pontoon corrosion?,
flooded pontoon?)
some brainstorming would help.
thanks
IFRs (Petroleum)
26 Apr 05
23:00
As for tilting the roof, the seal(s) may appear OK but are getting hang up on a tank shell
bulge. What type and manufacturer and year is the seal? It could be that the floating roof
is horizontal but the tank is leaning? Perhaps a roof drain swivel is frozen? Or an antirotation roller getting bound up on a gauge pole? Or a floating suction line swivel joint
bound up? Exactly how much is it out-of-level? Does the floating roof change levelness?
dorios (Mechanical)
26 Apr 05
23:34
hi,
shell bulge and differential settlement are now being investigated. no frozen swivel as the
tanks are in a tropical zone.
how much is out of level is difficul to say: we see this when the rain accumulates on one
side (I have to ask the maint. people if it is all the time on the same side?)but we know that
when the bleeders are open the roof assumes initial position.
we assume it is a ballooning effect of the central area where gas bubbles are buit up. I
could not find anything in the Codes that tells me how much deflection of the floating roof I
can have. that is another matter but still of interest. thanks
27 Apr 05
11:10
Roof tilt may also be due to a flooded compartment. Have you checked them to see if they
are dry? What is tank diameter? How long are the deck leg sleeves below the deck?
Steve Braune
dorios (Mechanical)
29 Apr 05
3:00
we are currently investigating the pontoon and look for flooded compartments. It is a 60 m
diam tank. We discarded the shell bulging, diff settlement and it seems that the slight tild
is due to gass pressure (probably over 10 psi)... we'll do some FEA to see if this pressure
can cause central ballooning although the roof should be designed to withstand 11 psi
according to API650.
The sequence in my mind is:
- large gas bubble (5-6 dia)due to unstable components forms in the centre
- roof is slightly balooning in the centre
- rain (+ the poss effect of wind ) accumulates on the roof and is pushed sideway as the
centre deck is already slightly ballooned
- tilt (bear in mind: this is a sl;ight tilt) occurs
we opened the bleeder vents 1 first-> water tends to come to the centre then the second
bleeder vent no 2 opened which gave gas release (+ some crude) following which water
runs towards the centre which suggests a) the central deck was ballooned and b) the cause
was the formation of gas
Calculating MAWP of API 650 Fixed Roof Tank
OilBoiler (Chemical)
8 Jun 05
15:13
Hi everyone,
I need to calculate the MAWP of an existing API 650 tank so I can start designing a vent
vapor recovery system. and I'm looking at Appendix F of the API 650 code. I'm a process
engineer, so when I got to Figure F-2 I got lost. So if we use the formula shown in section
F.4.1, that should give us the MAWP, right? I'm just confused trying to figure out the area
resisting the compressive force (as shown in F-2). If anyone can enlighten me on this, I
would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!
8 Jun 05
21:25
OilBoiler,
What design pressure does the name plate indicate?
If no pressure is listed then it probably was not designed for pressure. The design includes
more than the roof plates. A small internal pressure on a tank will produce a very large lift
force on the foundation. If this force is not accounted in the design, the foundation will lift
out or the anchor bolts may rip the shell.
You can safely assume that the internal pressure will balance the roof sheets. For a 7 ga.
roof (.179") that results in 7.3 psf (.05 psi).
10 Jun 05
1:08
Whether designed for an internal pressure or not, every tank can be evaluated for an
allowable pressure. Appx F uses three criteria. Rim angle compressive stress, rim angle
failure and shell uplift (if unanchored).
Steve Braune
JStephen (Mechanical)
28 Jun 05
14:08
In most cases, a tank that isn't specifically intended for pressure will be similar to Fig. F2(b) and (d) (or a cross between the two). You'd need to determine the actual geometry to
calculate the allowable pressure.
Fig. F-2 is a bit confusing. But note that w-h is figured the same way in each of the cases,
although the formula is only shown in one place, and similarly for w-c. The R-2 is found by
dividing the horizontal radius by the sine of the slope angle theta.
Once you've done that, you also need to check per F.4.2. Then calculate the estimated
failure pressure from F.6 and resulting vent setting as in F.4.2.
davidribeiro (Mechanical)
3 Aug 05
10:58
What I normally do is have a wall thickness test done from the outset, and check the
required thickness as per Paragraph 3.6.3 (One Foot Method).
If the shell meets this criteria, then:
1. Calculate the total weight of the shell excl roof plates

2. Calculate the area resisting the compressive force (Area roof + Area Shell + Area Rim
Angle)
3. Calculate the wind moments at the base.
With these variables now known, you can follow F.4 to determone the MAWP.
Please correct me if I'm wrong guys...
David
wind girders for internal floating roof tanks

ghkskn (Mechanical)
21 Jul 05 7:55
As far as I understand API650 requires top and intermediate wind girders ONLY for "opentop" tanks. Is there any rule mandating the use of intermediate wind girders for tanks with
internal floating roofs.
Gokhan
21 Jul 05 8:10
API requires top wind girders for open top tanks. Intermediate wind girders are required for
fixed roof or open top tanks only when the shell thickness is inadequate for wind
resistance. In many cases, it is cheaper to use a thicker shell than to do the extra welding
on the intermediate wind girder.
Atmospheric tank
ruble3 (Mining)
7 Jun 05
12:58
I'm a little out of my element here and there is no-one on site to ask (i.e. no qualified
person) -looking through info on API 650, API 2000 etc, what governs alterations to a tank,
9 metres high, 9 metres diamter that conatins a slurry ( non flammable. non toxic etc)? there is a manhole for entering the tank near the bottom - it becomes a major pain to clean
the tank out completely (there is still 2 or 3 feet of slurry in the bottom when drained)- the
operators want a slot cut in the bottom near the base to aid cleanout- I've been telling
them thay just can't cut a slot and weld a patch over it when done but I can't find the
proper 'articles' that tell me that- just about everything covers oil, petroleum products etc
and not just a water/slurry mix
PS I'm in Ontario if that makes any difference
same issue for a water stoarge tank(open to atmosphere) for fire protection -they want to
add a nozzle for a pressure transmitter- same thing- they just want to empty the tank, add
the nozzle & everything is fine and dandy! not in my mind
Thanks for any pointers in right direction
Look at API-653 for the rules for cutting shell door sheets.
7 Jun 05
21:07
Steve Braune
23 Jun 05
2:59
Yip API 653 is the way to go! Nice one Steve...

David
27 Jun 05
23:41
Government regulations (in the US) generally require oil tanks and their maintenance to
comply with API-650 and API-653. However, there is not usually a specific requirement
that general industrial tanks comply with API-650/653- it is typically used because there is
no other standard applicable either.
In other words, complying with API-653 for the tank modifications you mention would
represent good engineering practice, but is not necessarily a requirement.
9m x 9m is not that large a tank, but you still wouldn't want to be in the vicinity if it ever
split open.
________________________________________________________________-
API Calculations
Skeet6 (Mechanical)
18 Feb 05
11:01
I am an API inspector. I am trying to figure out the proper way of determining Tmin for a
bottom head or cone shape of the bottom of an atmoshepheric storage tank. These tanks
are supported in the air and a bottom head or come has a nozzle or nozzles coming
out. The top head is open and there is no pressure. How do I go about figuring out Tmin
for these items. I know some how the staic load pressure has to be taken into
consideration. PLaese help me in this calculation.
19 Feb 05
14:44
Skeet6,
Dude, this is a problem for a structural or mechanical engineer experienced in tank
design. No one can guide you through this via a newsgroup. Plate thickness is only one
issue that is to be addressed.
Steve Braune
14 Mar 05
12:51
What other codes dictates conical bottom tank designs?

29 Apr 05
23:07
API-620 can be used for conical bottoms, but as Steve mentions, more than the bottom
plate thickness needs to be checked to ensure the integrity of the tank. The bottom plate,
compression ring area, supports, and nozzle reinforcement all need to be
addressed. Etank2000 software can do most of this.
Jeffcoat Smitt
www.etank.com
www.fteinc.com
23 Jun 05
3:03
Optivessel will also have facilities to do the calcs Jeffcoat mentioned.

David
IFRs (Petroleum)
23 Jun 05
7:00
Porgrams are a useful tool in the hands of an experienced engineer. No more, no less. My
opinion only.
Calculating stresses in API 650 tank flled past

shell/roof junction
MFarris (Chemical)
18 Jan 06
16:31
I have been asked to analyze the stresses caused by filling an API 650 storage tank above
the roof to shell joint.
The tank(s) are mounted on concrete ring wall foundations but are NOT anchored to the
foundation by use of anchor chairs & bolts.
Where would the max. stresses occur in this case, at the floor to shell joint or at the roof to
shell joint? How would they be calculated, and what would be any indications of overstress
other than a complete failure?
As far as I can tell, the code does not address this issue.
Yes, I know that you're not supposed to overfill a storage tank, but our operations people
have done it in the past and there is no easy solution to address this problem
instrumentation-wise.
Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
JohnGP (Mechanical)
18 Jan 06
22:46
Maximum stresses will depend on the existing design of the various elements. But you can
check how big the problem is by analysing the tank against API 650 Code requirements for
the condition of the tank filled to overflow level.
The bottom course required thickness can be confirmed using section 3.6.3 or 3.6.4 of the
Code with H set equal to the overflow level.
The Roof-to-Shell junction can be checked against Appendix F requirements with regard to
an internal pressure equivalent to the liquid head above the junction (to overflow level).
Only if either check revealed that Code boundaries were exceeded would you need to lie
awake at night worrying, and to consider doing a more detailed analysis.
Regards,
John
18 Jan 06
23:03
Depending on tank size and details...

Roof seam could fail
Top angle could fail
Roof to shell weld could fail
Upper shell could could buckle
Shell to bottom weld could fail
Bottom seam could fail
Steve Braune
Ashereng (Petroleum)
19 Jan 06
14:14
Quote (MFarris):
and there is no easy solution to address this problem instrumentation-wise.
Sorry, I can't help with the stress calcs.

I may be able to help with the instrumentation part.
Why can't instrumentation help prevent an overfill?
20 Jan 06
9:17
API-650 does not address the overfill case, but it does have procedures for checking the
shell and the shell-to-roof joint. It doesn't address the check for the shell to bottom joint
because uplift at the base of a tank is prohibited at this point. What you need is a Storage
Tank Engineer to assist you on such matters. The knowledge needed will come from API650, API-620 and basic tank engineering knowledge. Hope this helps.
Steve Braune
20 Jan 06
17:01
You can analyze the allowable pressure in the roof and top angle by the methods in API620. However, they don't address what happens to the floor-shell connection when the
shell begins to uplift.
Some research along this line has been done in connection with frangible roof
studies. Both API and WRC have books dealing with that topic.
tank roof uplift

sme75 (Structural)
27 Mar 06
9:30
Is it typical to dsign for an uplift, due to wind, on the roof of storage tanks? API 650 and
AWWA D-100 do not seem to address the topic, they just give a formula for the lateral
load. In fact the anchorage calculations in section 3 of API 650 do not include an uplift due
to wind in table 3-21b. If you have used an uplift design force, what have you used to
calculate the force? Thanks for any ideas.
27 Mar 06
13:37
It is not typical to design tanks for an uplift for wind. API-650, AWWA D100 and even ASCE7 all give wind loads based on projected area, so you get a wind overturning moment, but
not a vertical wind uplift.
IFRs (Petroleum)
27 Mar 06
15:13
If the fixed roof has sufficient slope, like an aluminum dome roof, the dome roof structure is
analyzed for loading including uplift. Stresses from the uplift are contained within the
dome roof and not transmitted to the tank other than vertical uplift. The uplift of the dome
would tend to offload the tank structure, making it a non-critical load case and is safely
ignored for the tank design.
sme75 (Structural)
27 Mar 06
16:31
IFRs,
In this case the roof is a 15 degree cone with external stiffeners. Do you feel that
coefficients for a domed roof would apply in this situation? As JStephen mentioned, API,
AWWA, and ASCE all give lateral design forces, but do not address uplift on the roof of
tanks. The question originated from a request to check the sliding of the tank under wind
loads, including an uplift on the roof. With a large tank, an uplift on the roof will quickly
reduce the allowable friction force at the base. This will make uplift on the roof a critical
load case if there is not enough tank weight to resist the uplift and lateral wind loads.
UKCats (Chemical)
27 Mar 06
21:14
If designing a tank to Appendix F (Small Internal Pressures), shouldn't uplift be considered

since both the internal pressure, uplift and bending stress are trying to separate the tank
from the bottom plate???
Also, I was told that in the older codes didn't differentate between cone and domed roof
uplift coefficient. My doom roof on a 1972 existing tank has a uplift coefficient 3x of a cone
roof and it fails the 1.5 in w.c. rating of the tank. It passes with a cone roof. Anybody know
the history of uplift coefficients on storage tanks.
IFRs (Petroleum)
27 Mar 06
21:35
I'm a bit out of my expertise here, but I find this conversation stimulating and wish to see it
continue.
1) Would the external stiffeners disturb the flow of wind over the roof and cause enough
turbulence to at least introduce doubt as to the reliability of the pressure coefficients?
2) If your analysis shows that the tank will slide off the foundation, won't anchors take care
of it?
3) How do you determine the friction of the bottom on the foundation? Is the tank bottom
cone taken into account?
4) If the uplift exceeds the weight of the cone roof and it's structure then the outer edge of
the roof and tank may go into compression, leading to a different failure mode.
5) Can the owner put liquid into the tank if a hurricane approaches? Even water? There is
usually plenty of warning.
6) What is the diemater and height of the tank?
27 Mar 06
22:45
I'm assuming that the tank isn't pressurized. If it is, you certainly have pressure uplift, but
that isn't wind uplift.
Keep things in perspective here. Most tanks are operated somewhere between totally full
and totally empty. The sliding-in-the-wind problem assumes that the tank is just totally
empty, so it's an uncommon condition to begin with. I can't think of why you'd want to
approach this particular design aspect in an extra-conservative manner.
As to the wind on the roof with external stiffeners- using the API/AWWA wind loadings, it
would probably make sense to consider the stiffened roof as "flat" area at 30 PSF or so
instead of coned/double curved at 15 PSF.
Determining the friction is easy- it's stated in one or both codes (I think it's the tangent of
30 degrees, but would have to check). Testing it is easy- take a steel plate, a chunk of
concrete, tilt the plate till the concrete slides and measure the angle- that'll give you the
coefficienty of friction.
Unless standards say otherwise, I'd include the floor weight in the resisting weight for
sliding- I can't imagine that the tank's going to slide off and leave the floor there.
sme75 (Structural)
28 Mar 06
9:54
I agree that this is overly conservative and that the tank is not going to go anywhere,
however I can't seem to convince the foundation designer/customer that this is the
case. They want to see sliding calculations for an empty tank with wind uplift on the
roof. The tanks are anchored for overturning with bolt chairs, so if the tank moves the
bolts will bend and I believe that that is the real concern that they have. So this leads to
my original question of what would you use to calculate the uplift on the roof? I don't think
the codes address it and have not seen it calculated in other storage tank texts. I also
wonder if the stifferners, which are at most spaced at 6.25 feet, would disrupt the flow over
the roof like IFRs said. Using an uplift number they provided all but one tank checks out for
sliding, but in addition to this I will also need to re-check the top angle ring for the
uplift/compression in the ring. Do you know of a reference that I could use to clear this up
for them?
TankDude (Structural)
28 Mar 06
12:04
The resulting uplift from wind load is simply the result of the loading from lateral wind
pressure striking the projected area of the tank, roof included. You have to find the
projected area of the roof slope and multiply it by the applicable shape factor from API 650
and the wind pressure. You then multiply by the distance between the centroid of the roof
and the tank bottom to get the contributing overturning moment. Along with the o.t.
moment from the shell, the uplift case is listed in API 650 Table 3-21b (4th down). To say
there is true uplift of the roof due to wind is inaccurate (provided the roof to shell joint is
properly sealed). App. F does not apply for wind load (i.e. external pressure). Bear in mind
that if this is a self-supported cone roof you can contribute the entire weight of the roof
plate to the overturning resistance (as opposed to a structural roof). The sliding question
comes-up all the time and while not proposterous, it is still over conservative to consider
this as the only reason to anchor a tank. If the tank is already anchored then that should
be more than sufficient to stop the sliding due to wind.
sme75 (Structural)
28 Mar 06
13:32
Tankdude,
I have already done what you describe and this is not what I am asking. I am asking if
there is any requirement to design the roof for a vertical uplift force due to wind. This
would act similar to an internal pressure and lift up on the roof. This is typical in building
design and the ASCE 7 code addresses it for buildings. I don't think it addresses this for
tanks and this is further supported by the lack of coverage of this topic in the API code. It
seems that from the responses that are coming, the answer is that this type of uplift would
be atypical for a storage tank design.
28 Mar 06
16:27
sme75,
I would have to say that you're right, it's atypical for a tank design. I am not very familiar
with building design, but I cannot see how there can be any uplift from wind when there is
virtually no projected area on the underside of the roof for the wind to affect. I will look
through my ASCE 7 to see if any of the loading cases seem appropriate. Otherwise, I think
you have designed the tank correctly.
28 Mar 06
17:12
"I am asking if there is any requirement to design the roof for a vertical uplift force due to
wind." The answer is "No."
"The tanks are anchored for overturning with bolt chairs, so if the tank moves the bolts will
bend and I believe that that is the real concern that they have." The bolts should have
some nominal amount of pretension, and that force can be added to the weight in figuring
the friction- that's how the bolts resist sliding. If they don't have any nominal amount of
pretension, add it- it shouldn't take much. If you needed to, you could add a welded collar
at the base of each bolt chair specifically for shear loading, but this shouldn't be necessary.
You might note how they work this at a shear plane in concrete in ACI-318- they figure the
rebar will deflect slightly and then develop its full tensile capacity across the joint. It's
obviously not a load situation that you'd want to reverse repeatedly.
UKCats (Chemical)
29 Mar 06
9:30
Isn't the uplift force due to the aerodynamic shape of the roof. Wind blowing across a foil
will cause lift. A dome roof has a higher uplift coefficient than a cone roof. I have a graph
that shows the uplift coeff is 3x on a dome roof than on a cone roof.
29 Mar 06
14:35
When wind blows across a cone or dome roof there is an uplift force. Several wind tunnel
studies have shown this behavior. The uplift coefficents are higher at the windward edge
of the tank and minimal at the leeward side. The current API-650 does not require that this
load be addressed for cone roofs. The unfortunate problem is that when one applies
building code rules to tanks strange things happen on paper. Tha last time I saw this done
it resulted in a 50 ft diamter water tank having anchorage at about every 5 feet around
perimeter. Really looked odd, but owner's consultant was convinced that the tank would
uplift and drift away in a 100mph wind. The uplift forces have reared thir ugly heads a few
times. Hurricane Andrew ripped the roof off of a few tanks in Florida.
Steve Braune
UKCats (Chemical)
29 Mar 06
15:32
A saw a study from Huricane Andrew that reported a tank's domed roof failed at the top
seam because of uplift and actually prevented the shell/bottom seam from failing. The
weight of the tank's contents kept the tank from blowing over per se.
When did the wind tunnel study of dome roofs occur. I heard in the mid to late 1990s the
increased aerodynamic affects of dome roofs entered into standards.
29 Mar 06
17:52
I would suspect that even the tanks damaged in Andrew were not designed for the wind
velocities encountered.
IFRs (Petroleum)
29 Mar 06
19:33
API 650 Addendum 4 dated Dec 2005 and just released for purchase includes uplift due to
wind as a required load. If I read it correcly (and I just got my copy today), the uplift is
30psf on horizontal projected areas of conical or doubly curved surfaces. This is for a wind
speed of 120mph and is raised or lowered by the ratio of the velocities squared. They
allow an alternate calculation by ASCE 7.
sme75 (Structural)
29 Mar 06
20:04
Thanks for the discussion. I will look into the latest addendum of API 650, I have been
waiting for it to come out to at least close the gap between ASCE and it on the seismic
loads. It looks like they have also addressed this issue as well
30 Mar 06
0:02
Hey, thanks for mentioning that it is out- been expecting it for the last year, I'll check into
it.
Is that uplift required on all tanks? It sounds high.
UKCats (Chemical)
30 Mar 06
8:15
I believe it also states 18 psf on vertical cylindrical surfaces, corrected for wind (V/120)^2.
It also says 30 psf for horizontal projected areas of conical or doubly curved surfaces.
Not being a structual engineer, does that mean you use 18 psf for overturning moment
(vertical projection) and uplift I hope and 30 psf for compression ring (horizontal
projection)???
30 Mar 06
9:05
Just so everyone is clear about API-650. What has just been published is the fourth
addenum to the Standard, not a new edition. A new edition is expected to be published
later this year.
Steve Braune
IFRs (Petroleum)
30 Mar 06
12:38
Steve - Are there more changes to 650 beyond Addendum 4?

14 Apr 06
10:03
Well, I got in the Addendum 4 and started playing with it. I think the wind uplift/overturn
part is totally screwy.
Specifically, the wind uplift is larger than the normal dead weight of a roof. For the overall
tank to be unanchored, you need a certain amount of shell weight to anchor the roof. So,
for example, my design shows me that a 50' diameter by 16' high tank is not stable for
wind uplift/overturn, whereas a 50' diameter by 56' high tank is. (If you want to check, I'm
figuring 1/4" shell in both, 3/16" roof plate, 2,400# supported rafter weight, no internal
pressure, 120 MPH 3-second gust.)
I'll send a note in to API, but I can't imagine that this is the intended result of the design
procedure.
carthago (Mechanical)
11 May 06
11:55
If this addendum is correct and I hope not (entirely)

then we will have anchor bolts everywhere!!!
-------------------Just for the record I have noticed on an old german standard for storage tank (DIN 4119part 2)
a nice sketch with the uplift do to wind with a wind uplift pressure equal to 0.6 * the
horizontal wind pressure.
The skectch is a a dome roof.
Uplift force in storage tank, API 650 addendum

10 May 06
10:58
I though about sending an equiry to API..Probably I would do it, if my confusion

remains..but If someone understand this , please let me know.
-------------------Refering to API-650 (Addendum December 2005), paragraph 3.2.1-f - I guess this is the
last version of API 650.
In calculating the wind load on an API 650 storage tank with say, Diameter D and Height
H.
My understanding is that there is a horizontal load = Fh , applied at (H/2) and there is a
UPLIFT load applied at roof center , this is a vertical upward =Fv
The total overturning moment would be:
Mw = Fh*(H/2) + F_uplift *(D/2)
with:
Fh = p_horizontal * H*D
F_uplift = p_uplift * ( 3.14 :4*) *D^2
Is this correct ?
Of course one can include the cone.., but I am talking about the formulation.
First question: Do we have always to take this UPLIFT verical force into account ??
I have seen many design were this was omitted...
In fact people have added (if ever they did) anchor bolts for some other reasons!!
If answer to this 1st question is yes , than we always end up will (almost every time) end
up with anchor bolts (
Anchor bolt tensile stress = (4*Mw / d ) - (Tank Weight) > zero ).
Second question : Is my understanding of thiese factors correct), i.e:
p_horizontal = 18(lbf/ft2)* V/120) ^2 = 0.86(kPa)*(V/190)^2
Uplift:
p_vertical = 30(lbf/ft2)*(V/120) ^2= 1.44(kPa)*(V/190)^2
This means that for a tank 20 m diameter F _uplift = 314 * 1440 = 452 kilo newton !!!
..huge
Third question: API-650 ( Addendum December 2005), paragraph 3.2.1-f-2 states that uplift pressure on roof = p_vertical = 30 ( lbf/ft2)* (V/120) ^2 in [lbf/ ft]
= 1.44 (kPa) *
(V/190)^2
shall be LESS THAN ( 1.6 * P_internal as ),
P_internal as given in F.4.1
A/-Is see an inconsisty here !! how can we relate the wind effect to the design pressure ??
Does this mean that one, has to Derivate/ calculate The internal pressure from the uplift
pressure ?? And then check the detail and its section as per appendix F.
I think API has the to add this as an additional check to appendix F..
B/-What if there is no internal pressure.. which uplift pressure do we have to take ?
10 May 06
17:53
I think your concerns are well-founded. This is a major change in the loading on
tanks. Whether it is justified, or whether it will be changed, I can't say.
It does appear that you are calculating the moment correctly. You mention about including
the cone, but note that Addendum 4 doesn't require you to include the projected roof area
in the horizontal force calculation.
First Question- as the standard is now written, you always have to take that upward force
into account. This is a distinct change, and people have not done it previously because the
tank codes didn't require it previously.
Second Question- the english pressures are correct, haven't check the metric. Keep in
mind that in a lot of cases, the design wind velocity will be less than 120.
I think the limitation on pressure is actually there to simplify things. The way I read it, if
there is no internal design pressure, you can use a standard roof, you don't have to design
the roof itself for the wind uplift pressure. And then the wind uplift pressure used in the
overturning check need not exceed the strength of the as-built roof.
New API 650 Seismic

IFRs (Petroleum)
18 Mar 06
7:10
I understand that the up-coming edition of API 650 has a completely re-written appendix E
(seismic). Does anyone out there know how the new results will compare (higher or lower)
to the old results?
18 Mar 06
13:08
In addition to a completely new format, the loads are generally a bit higher in a lot of
places.
Steve Braune
20 Mar 06
0:40
Steve Braune
RE API 650 has a completely re-written appendix E (seismic) is a draft for review available.
20 Mar 06
1:18
Isthill,
A new API-650 is being drafted, but it is still an internal document for API subcommittee
activities only. A public copy is not available.
Steve Braune
IFRs (Petroleum)
20 Mar 06
8:43
Knowing that the committees are very sensitive to the impact of code revisions on the
member companies, I assume that comparative calculations have been run for a variety of
cases between the old Appendix E and the new one. Can the results of these studies be
shared?
20 Mar 06
18:52
http://www.tankindustry.com/Papers/Upcoming%20Changes%20to%20Seismic
%20Design%20Criteria%20-revised%202000.pdf
29 Mar 06
10:18
You can view the new API 650 at the following location:
http://committees.api.org/standards/cre/scpvt/refdocs/docs.html
There is a line near the bottom that reads:
PIP/API 650 Draft 79, dated October 5, 2005
It is not underlined as a link, but if you click on it, it will offer you the option to download
the code.
Keep in mind this is a draft document and should not be used for design purposes until it is
published.
Hope this helps.
IFRs (Petroleum)
29 Mar 06
16:16
The new API 650 has been released for public purchase.
29 Mar 06
16:19
Can you provide a link because I can't seem to find it on their website.
Thanks
IFRs (Petroleum)
29 Mar 06
16:22
Try http://www.techstreet.com, then click the API button near the upper left.
IFRs (Petroleum)
29 Mar 06
19:56
Try http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/detail?product_id=1258771 for a free

download of the Addendum
API 650 & Tank Software
rotaryguy (Mechanical)
18 Jul 06 9:35
Hi guys,
i may be nutts but need help. i am using TANK software for Shell plate thickness
calculations. problem is that i have to Design atmospheric tank as per 650. I require input
design pressure on top (PSI). it is atmospheric pressure it should be 14.7 psi. but API 650
limits maximum design pressure to 2.5 PSI.
need pressure value?
18 Jul 06
14:28
API 650 and the applicable design software view atmospheric pressure as 0 psig. So just
input 0 and it should run the design.
18 Jul 06
21:15
Yes, pressure there is "gauge pressure", not absolute pressure.
panduru (Mechanical)
19 Jul 06 9:30
On a slightly different note, though:

In case of ASME Sec. VIII Div. 1 BPV Code, the design is intended for internal pressures
above 15 psi (g, I believe). If the int. pr. is "atmospheric," the vessel can still be desiged as
per code, I am told.
The formulas result in such small values of thickness that in most cases, the commonly
used minimum plate thickness of 5 mm, turns out to be adequate for nearly every vessel of
reasonable diameter. (Remembering that as opposed to storage tanks, reaction vessels are
generally not so huge in size).
Am I missing anything here? I strongly suspect so.
If anyone would to discuss this on a separate thread of its own, I will start it.
Tx in adv.
dig1 (Civil/Environme)
19 Jul 06
14:40
Panduru,
A vessel with no gauge pressure (0 psig MAWP at top)can be designed per Div.1.
One thing that you did not mention is the difference in allowable stress between Div. 1 &
API 650. There are also different treatments for nozzles between the two codes.
So using ASME software, such as PVElite, Compress, APV, and similar software to design an
API storage tank is not technically correct because it does not comply with all the
requirements of the API code. I've been thru this on the review end and it is a hassle to go
back and forth several times.
I hope I intrepreted your comment correctly.
TANK is an API 650 software so the above discussion isn't applicable but I've seen what I
mentioned done several times.
rotaryguy (Mechanical)
20 Jul 06
23:25
yep i have been told i can designed storage tank using 0.0 psi as Tank software limits upto
2.5 psi as per API 650. thanks guys for your info it really help a lot for newbee like me.
24 Jul 06
10:44
Thank you, rotaryguy.
API 650 TANK anchor bolts saddle design

AlexRG (Mechanical)
18 Jul 06
17:07
hi, is there a recomended method or specification by any rule, to design the saddles in
anchored aboveground tanks??
Thanks.
18 Jul 06
17:32
The most common design guideline that I'm aware of is from the book "Steel Plate
Engineering Data" by the Steel Plate Fabricators Association. Inside there are guidelines on
many topics including anchor bolts, anchor chairs and anchor saddles.
BigInch (Petroleum)
18 Jul 06
20:21
Is it a vertical cylindrical tank or horizontal bullet type?

If vertical cylindrical, straddle the bolts on the major axes.
If horizontal,
Use steel/steel slide plates if the concrete pedestal or column supports will not take
bending load from friction due to saddle movement from vessel thermal expansion, due to
ambient temperatures and/or operating temperature.
If expansion frictional load is still too great, use teflon slide plates.
Oversize top slide plate by horizontal expansion distance to keep dirt from accumulating on
lower plate.
Both,
Use AB sleeves if AB is > 3/4"
Going the Big Inch!
http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com
Learning Aid for API Tank Design
15 Jul 06 9:40
What would be a suitable software/ tutorial/ demo to start learning design of above ground
storage tanks as per API 650 Appendix A?
Is the "one-foot method" (whatever it is) an acceptable alternative to Appendix A, or is it
intended for a different purpose?
Every kind of lead, tip or suggestion is most appreciated.
Tx in adv
panduru
15 Jul 06 9:45
PS: I did do a simple search on eng-tips forums without much success. This question may
have been answered in another thread earlier. Pointers to the relevant thread if any, will
also be most welcome.
Tx in adv
panduru
15 Jul 06
18:37
The old API-650 used a single, somewhat low, allowable stress for all applicable steels. At
some point, they added an appendix that allowed higher stresses with increased inspection
and othe requirements. In time, that appendix became the main design method, and the
original design method was moved to Appendix A.
Appendix A is supposed to only be used when specified by the owner, but most owners will
let you use it if you propose it. Appendix A will let you use A36 steel where you might not
otherwise be able to. And it will let you delete radiography for some tanks if you owner will
go for it. Appendix A is not just a different way of calculating shell thickness, it includes a
number of other changes to the base code. Appendix A actually does use the one-foot
method for shell design, but uses different allowable stresses and different joint efficiency.
If you use the base code, you have a choice of the one-foot method or the variable design
point method (or shell analysis theory). If you're new to the standard, just use the one-foot
method and be done with it. The other methods allow somewhat thinner steel on larger
tanks.
General steps involved in design of an API-650 tank are (with some variation):
-Check lowest design temperature and select acceptable steels
-Design shell for product and hydrotest conditions using one-foot or VDP methods
-Check shell for blow-in, and increase shell thickness or add intermediate wind girders if
required.
-Design wind girder if open top or roof if fixed roof
-Check for wind overturn
-Design for internal pressure by Appendix F if applicable.
-Check for seismic stability by Appendix E.
-Size vents per API-650 and API-2000.
If you're new to the standard, take a bit of time and thumb through it. Most of the design
for a normal tank is in sections 1-3. Get familiar with the appendices so you know when to
refer to them. You will need structural design codes (AISC-ASD or equivalent) to design
roof structure.
AISI has some guides on steel tank design, thought they are somewhat dated. AWWA has
a manual on steel tank work, although oriented towards water tanks.
16 Jul 06
10:56
Thank you, JStephen, that's most helpful.

Basically, I wanted to know what I should understand by "design as per Appx A."
At this stage, it may not be possible for me to do a serious study of the various design
methods in the std, compare them and understand the differences.
Any further pointers will be most helpful and timely.
tx in adv
panduru
Help with API650 - 3.11 - Wind load on tanks

pdosreis (Mechanical)
12 Jul 06 9:59
Hi,
I'm calculating a storage tank, of D=13,5m and H=10,85m.
When calculating wind load on tanks (overturning stability), section 3.11, I've followed all
the steps in this section and reached the conclusion of no need for anchorage, because
M<2/3x(WxD/2).
Now, I really don't know (understand) what to do with 3.11.4 that refers to sliding due to
wind, and gives me a "maximum allowable sliding friction of 0,40 multiplied by the force
against the tank bottom".
What am I suppose to due with this factor, where do I apply it? How do I calculate if I need
anchorage because of sliding? Can anyone help me?
12 Jul 06
14:13
Take the total weight of the tank, including the floor and structure, and multiply by 0.4 to
find the sliding resistance. Compare to the total lateral wind force.
Addendum 4 to API-650 revises the wind loading considerably by adding a wind uplift
requirement- you need to look into it if this tank is not specified to be built by Addendum 3.
12 Jul 06
14:45
Thanks! That really helped.

Can you just tell me if I should consider also 2/3.
Like this:
MaxOverturningMomentwithoutAnch.=2/3x((Wtank+Wfloor+Wroof)xD/2)
And then compare this to:
OverturningMomentfromWindPress.=Wind PressurexDxH/2
Did I understood it right?
12 Jul 06
18:06
Generally the floor would be considered for the sliding resistance, but not for the
overturning. Or at least that's the way I would work it.
Your second formula would be M = pressure x D x H x H/2. But in the new Addendum 4,
you have a term for uplift on the roof as well, and some additional equations to calculate
uplift resistance.
12 Jul 06
21:26
Sorry, but maybe I didn't explained myself very well.

Forget the "Overturning" term I used, I'm only talking about sliding.
The overturning issue it's already taken care of, and I agree with you, I didnt consider the
floor when calculating overturning.
So:
MaxSlidingwithoutAnch.=2/3x((Wtank+Wfloor+Wroof)xD/2)
MomentfromWindPress.=Wind PressurexDxH/2
It's this what you were saying in your first answer?
13 Jul 06
14:06
If you're considering sliding, then it's not a moment. I don't think there's any requirement
to use a 2/3 factor, for that matter.
You'd have maximum sliding force = (Wtank+Wfloor+Wroof) x 0.4
And compare to Wind Pressure x D X H
WIND LOAD ON TANKS

AlexRG (Mechanical)
7 Jul 06 14:31
Hi, we are designing a Storage Tank under API STD 650, but we dont have very clear how
to calculate the wind moment as its described in 3.11. Anything would be apreciated.
Thanks
BigInch (Petroleum)
7 Jul 06 14:57
Ask the structural types.

IFRs (Petroleum)
7 Jul 06 22:43
The wind moments are wind forces times the distance from the center of pressure to the
point that the moments are summed around. In this case the moments are summed
around the intersection of the tank shell and the bottom. The horizontal force is the
horizontal wind pressure times the tank vertical projected area (height times
diameter). The moment arm is half the tank Height. The wind pressure is determined in
3.2.1f. The vertical force is the wind pressure times the horizontal projected area
(diameter squared * Pi / 4) and the moment arem is half the tank diameter. The vertical
pressure is also determined in 3.2.1f. Add to this any moment due to internal
pressure. The total resulting moment is resisted by moments resulting from the tank dead
weight and/or liquid, per 3.11.2 for unanchored tanks and 3.11.3 for anchored tanks. Hope
this helps...
Slope in API 650 Storage Tank

tpensa01 (Mechanical)
4 Jul 06 23:23
Hello. I would like to know if it is mandatory per API 650 to manufacure a storage tank with
a slope in the bottom. Tank's diameter is 24 feet. (Could we manufacture a storage tank
with a completely flat bottom and meet API 650 requirements?
Regards.
Orangel Roca
Tecnica Pensa
IFRs (Petroleum)
5 Jul 06 7:26
Slope is optional in API 650. I have seen many flat bottom API tanks.
_______________________________________________________________________--
API 650 Supported Cone Roof

olmedo (Mechanical)
28 Aug 06
3:52
I am trying to find API 650 requirements regarding arrangement of center columns, rafters
and girders for given tank diameters. If API is silent on this, can somebody point a website
where I can find one.
28 Aug 06
10:16
API 650 provides very general guidance for a structural roof design. It gives you maximum
allowable rafter spacing (2*PI) as well as some slenderness ratio guidelines for
columns. As for arrangement it provides nothing that I am aware of. This is more of a
designer and/or tank contractor specification. The basic rules need to follow AISD
methods, but a lot of this comes from experience within the industry regarding economy,
fabrication, and ease of installation.
richay (Mechanical)
28 Aug 06
13:20
There is a chapter on "supported cone roof design" in the text by Brownell & Young;
Process Equipment Design. I believe this text has been recently republished, so you should
be able to find it.
Richard Ay
COADE, Inc.
28 Aug 06
13:31
"Steel Plate Engineering Data- Volume 1- Steel Tanks for Liquid Storage" from AISA/SPFA
includes some information on roof design. This and perhaps the Brownell book are based
on older AISC or API allowable stresses, but the design methods should be about the same.
Typically, a tank will have a single center column up to maybe 60-80' diameter, with
multiple columns in circular layouts for sizes much over this, with details depending on
fabricator and designer. What exactly are you needing?

olmedo (Mechanical)
28 Aug 06
22:42
For my current project, I need to know if I can do away with a center column because our
operation people thinks that it might provide problems in maintenance. Our tank diameter
is 15 meters and tank content is domestic water. I need to show reference standards to
convince end user to accept our design.
29 Aug 06
0:19
API 650 does not specifically require a rafter-type roof. It has some general requirements
for that style of roof, but also for umbrella and self-supporting cone roofs, as well as opentopped.
The center column (and rafters themselves) do involve some extra maintenance liability,
but also lower the initial cost. On a tank of that size, an umbrella would work pretty well.
You can use a columnless arrangement with rafters, or use trusses, but these don't really
improve the maintenance aspect. Another option would be an aluminum dome roof.
29 Aug 06
9:32
I would agree that an umbrella or geodesic dome would work well in this instance. You
certainly cannot expect to simply remove the center column and keep the same structural
arrangment that you currently have. Even a columnless structural roof would likely require
heavier rafters at a greater pitch. Depending upon your location an aluminum geodome
would work well (be cautious if you are on the coast however). And umbrella of that size
could be easily erected and set in place.
sme75 (Structural)
29 Aug 06
13:47
You design parameters will dictate whether or not a center column is necessary, but if you
do not have significant internal or external design pressures there is no reason that a
center column would be required. Assuming that this is a new tank, a diameter of 15
meters can easily be spanned with a stiffened cone roof or a dome roof and there are many
tanks of this size in service without a center support. Talk with a tank manufacturer and
tell them what you want. Your proof for the end user would be the recommendation of the
manufacturer and having them provide stamed design drawings and/or calculations
olmedo (Mechanical)
30 Aug 06
1:05
Thanks to all, your comments are well taken and are certainly helpful.
Welding Tanks to Foundation

cwigg66 (Civil/Environme)
29 Aug 06
8:51
I recently inspected three fuel storage ASTs in Florida, and found that all three tanks were
welded to their foundation. That is, the concrete pedestal on which they stood had steel
plates (probably small I beam pieces) cast into it, and the tanks were welded to those
plates directly. Has anyone ever seen this, and wouldn't it be better to weld tabs to the
tanks and bolt them down that way. The welded areas were poorly coated due to
clearance issues and had already begun to corrode after only two months of service.
If anyone can point me in the right direction as to what Florida regulation requires tanks to
be anchored, it would be helpful.
FYI, the tanks are 30K vertical tanks, covered with a metal pole barn, and surrounded with
a concrete containment structure. Tanks are UL rated. Thanks
Chris
29 Aug 06
9:29
I have seen this in the past. Typically the embedded members are channel (or I beam
possibly). The arrangement that I have seen in the past had only the tank shell welded to
the member with no steel bottom. I honestly couldn't tell you the
advantages/disadvantages, aside from possibly avoiding prolonged concern with bottom
corrosion. Depending upon where in Florida this could be a major concern due to the salt
in the air. This connection does obviously help to resist uplift and sliding, however the
welded area must be properly designed. As for a Florida regulation for anchoring, I don't
know of one specifically. I always reference API 650 which not referes to the ASCE 7 (and
subsequently the IBC).
29 Aug 06
22:04
I'm not sure if you are talking about the same things. TankDude, you're thinking of a tank
with embedded channel, continous around the tank, but with no floor? I've seen this done
with water tanks, but never with a fuel tank of any kind. And Chris, sounds like your tank
has a regular steel floor, and it is just welded to bits of steel that are embedded in the
foundation?
I can see corrosion being a problem here. This seems like a week connection, as it seems
the uplift force could bend the tank bottom chime down. The only way I can see this
working would be if uplift forces were very minimal- which is what you have with a 30,000
gallon tank.
Generally, I think building codes would require construction per the tank codes. For a UL
tank, you'd need to refer to the UL standards to see if that is permitted. I don't think it
would meet API-650.
Water storage Tank

AlexRG (Mechanical)
1 Aug 06
10:40
Hi, im designing a water storage tank, can i use the API-650 to do all the calculations??
1 Aug 06
13:46
You would be better served to use the AWWA D100. The basic principles are the same as
API 650, but the material design stresses listed in AWWA are lower than API. Also, if this
tank is for fire protection, you need to refer to NFPA-22.
It depends on what it's for.
1 Aug 06
13:57
For municipal/ potable water, normally AWWA D100 would be used, and might be required.
If it's industrial, raw water, waste water, etc., API-650 could be used. Also check out
Appendix A as an option.
If it's a small tank, there won't be any savings from using API-650.
API-650 has more details on typical nozzle construction, whereas AWWA D100 has more
requirements on ladders and stuff.
1 Aug 06
16:27
Is the tank elevated or ground supported?

Steve Braune
AlexRG (Mechanical)
1 Aug 06
16:35
yes its a small tank, about 16" of diameter and 22" of height, the material to be used its A36 carbon steel. Its a ground supported water storage tank.
1 Aug 06
17:40
Did you mean 16 FEET x 22 FEET? A 16 inch x 22 inch tank is truly a baby tank. Either way
the design code would make little difference. I'd use AWWA D100 in this case. It a simpler
Code than API-650. And, it is specifically for water service tanks.
Steve Braune
AlexRG (Mechanical)
1 Aug 06
19:41
ok thanks for your advice, and by the way, its 16 FEET x 22 FEET, sorry about that.
4 Aug 06
11:27
@AlexRG: guess you do well to recheck your units before foraying into design! All the best.
external pressures API 620 versus API 650

28 Jul 06
18:58
1/What are the maximum allowable External Pressure for API 620 and 650???
2-/API620 talks in its paragraph 5.10.5.2 talks about one ounce per square inch with the
operating liquid at any level...
Who large is one ounce per square inch in psi or millibar ??
3-/in this API620 Is vacuum (noted I believe as (Pg) which is negative in this case)
something total DIFFERENT than the external pressure ??
29 Jul 06 0:07
16 ounces = 1 lb. So 1 ounce per square inch = 1/16 lb per square inch = 9 lb/square foot
or 1.73 inches of water column.
I don't recall what the API-620 requirements for vacuum are. API-650 limits vacuum to 5
PSF or so. There is a new appendix (new in Addendum No. 4) that allows vacuum design to
1 or 2 PSI. I don't recall the Appendix number, but it's the last one in the book.
Large thin shells are fairly sensitive to external pressure, and so are limited to fairly low
values unless they are intentionally beefed up. A smaller tank may be adequate for quite a
bit higher vacuum just due to minimum thickness requirements.
Vacuum and external pressure are essentially the same thing. Vacuum implies
atmospheric pressure outside and less than atmospheric pressure inside. External
pressure implies atmospheric pressure inside and greater than atmospheric pressure
outside. But in either case, the significant fact is that the absolute pressure outside is
higher than the absolute pressure inside. Whether the vacuum is treated as a positive or
negative number would just depend on the application and how the variables are defined
for that particular equation.
API 650-Bottom shape selection

carletes (Chemical)
20 Sep 06
15:52
Dear all,
I have seen storage tanks (crude oil, diesel, kerosene,..) which have different bottom types:
some of them have conical shape (slope approx. 1:120) with the tank center being the
highest point and a drawoff sump near the shell but in other cases the bottom has inverted
conical shape with the tank center being the lowest and a drawoff sump in that center.
Does anybody knows the advantages/disadvantages of each solution?
Best regards and thank you

20 Sep 06
21:58
The theoretical advantage to having a tank crowned up at the center is that if the center
settles more than the edge, it won't load the floor in tension. But I don't know if that
makes any big difference in practice.
Edge sumps require less piping, and don't have to dodge the center column. Center sumps
should help avoid corrosion around the shell, and drain to a single point better.
24 Sep 06
15:16
With the edge of the shell being higher then the center, all the sediment and water will
tend to gravitate to the center for easy removal by the sump pump.
27 Sep 06
9:37
Carletes,
This particular issue is discussed in detail in Phillip Myers fine book "Aboveground Storage
Tanks" (McGraw-Hill)
You will find different opinions by different "tank experts" on this issue. The best choice
depends a lot on the liquid stored, the tank coating system and the expected design life of
the tank.
In my understanding, for storage of crude, cone-up or flat bottom is preferred because
corrosion is not concentrated in the center of the bottom. Corrosion there is harder to
detect and repair. A downside is multiple water draw-off points on the tank perimeter
For storage of less aggressive liquids,...your choice
-MJC
_____________________________________________________________________-
How do you apply platform loads to a self supporting

cone/umbrella?
LeonEarle (Mechanical)
9 Jan 07
17:08
I have a 20' diameter tank that currently has a self-supporting cone roof with 3.65" in 12"
pitch. I need to install a 12' x 15' platform above the roof and need to know how to apply
the platform loads for designing the roof thickness. Platform will be 17.25 psf dead weight
and API 650 says platform is to be designed with 1,000# moving concentrated load. We
are planning to support with 9 supports from platform to roof.
Roof design dead load is weight of roof plate. Rood design live load is 20 psf in accordance
with API 650. To apply the roof loads, do I distribute the loads over the area of the platform
or calculate the loads as 9 concentrated loads?
Is there a reference for how to do this?
Thanks!!!
9 Jan 07
17:25
The platform will apply nine concentrated loads to the roof plate. API has no procedures
for designing a roof with such loads therefore you are on your own design-wise. I
recommend that you configure the roof platform so that the loads are positioned at the
perimeter of the roof, directly over the shell plate.
Joe Tank
9 Jan 07
21:24
I would also design the platform to be supported only at the perimeter of the tank. Even if
the platform is smaller than the roof, just run the beams on across to the other side.
You have two issues. One is a lack of design methods for analyzing the roof under
concentrated loads. (Come to think of it, you could treat it as a cylinder with radius equal
to the cone roof normal radius, and use WRC 297 on it, but that would be a pain.)
Second issue is that there should be a big difference in rigidity between the shell and the
roof, so that supports distributed across both would not be equally supported by both.
11 Jan 07
9:36
Whatever point loads you have on top of tank wall, you will need internal bracing at each
point load to resist lateral thrust. Depending on wall thickness, wall could also buckle at
point loads, therefore, 9 external columns to support point loads may be necessary.
11 Jan 07
10:22
Chicopee,
I concur that stiffening of the tank wall is likley required. I normally put the vertical shell
stiffeners on the outside of the shell.
Joe Tank
11 Jan 07
15:27
In a lot of cases, you won't need lateral support at the support points due to the stiffness of
the roof itself. Vertical stiffeners would depend on how high the loads were.
14 Jan 07
21:41
JoeTank- vertical stiffeners would be a good solution obviously length would have to be
investigated. About side loading, would the roof to shell ring be able to cope with wind
loads on the platform and from eccentric loads between columns and tank wall? JStephen
does not think additional bracing would be necessary.
16 Jan 07
22:01
I have never seen a case where wind loads of the platform would require any special efforts
design-wise. The eccentricity of the vertical load must be accounted for in the design of
the vertical shell stiffeners. In general, the length of the stiffener ends up being longer due
to the eccentricity.
Joe Tank
Recommended Reference/Design Texts

merton (Petroleum)
17 Dec 06
17:22
What texts would be benefitial companions to API 650 and API 620? I have been looking at
"Design of Plate and Shell Structures (Maan H. Jawad)" and "Structural Analysis and Design
of Process Equipment, 2nd Edition (Maan H. Jawad)". If anyone has any opinions or
recommendations for other books it would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
18 Dec 06
0:15
The AISI publishes a book "Useful Information on the Design of Plate Structures" or
something of the sort. See if you can get a copy of it. The parts dealing with code
specifics are outdated, but still useful reading. Working with someone familiar with the
standards would be more helpful than anything.
18 Dec 06
10:52
Brownell & Young wrote a book in the 1950s or 1960s. It was titled "Process Equipment
Design" or similar. An excellent reference text.
Joe Tank
18 Dec 06
13:20
There's also a "Tank Handbook" or something of the sort, but it's more concerned with
regulatory requirements than the actual details of tank design.
20 Dec 06
16:44
"Aboveground Storage Tanks" by Phil Myers is a good one as well.

28 Dec 06
9:00
"Joe tank" et al.....

The engineering classic text "Process Equipment Design" was published in 1959 by John
Wiley & Sons. The authors are Lloyd E. Brownell, Edwin H. Young.
It is a superb engineineering mechanics guideline for the design and analysis of equipment
commonly found in petrochemical and process plants.
Because of its scarcity and the publishers inattention to new editions,it now commands
over $300 on AMAZON.COM
http://www.amazon.com/Equipment-Design-Lloyd-E-Brownell/dp/0471113190
Many have a cherished Xeroxed copy of the text in thier garage.
-MJC
Tema Member:
28 Dec 06
10:10
BROWN BOOK SHOP HOUSTON TEXAS

http://www.brownbookshop.com/
API 650 Tank software

Ruanaidh (Mechanical)
29 Mar 07
17:15
Is there an available software for the design and calculation of API 650 tanks? We currently
use Compress for our ASME tanks and was wondering if there was anything available for
API 650 tanks. Thanks.
29 Mar 07
22:01
There are one or two programs- try a search for some other posts. Last I heard, though,
the programs hadn't yet been updated for Addendum 4.
Ruanaidh (Mechanical)
29 Mar 07
23:09
I've seen etank, tank & tri-tank650. Is there anyone that is easier and more user friendly
than the other?
30 Mar 07
12:12
ITS Design has been updated to Add 4 for sometime. We also have ETank which has not
been updated yet. None of the API programs are as complete as Compress and may only
have 1 programmer working part time on them.
You can see info on ITSDesign at the link below:
www.innovativetanksolution.com
30 Mar 07
12:41
Without being specific, each of the tank programs I have encountered have shortcomings
to various degrees. I know this because our clients have asked us to review output results
that seem to be questionable. In a few cases it's simply a case that they input something
incorrectly. Generally, it's a problem with not being updated or some type of programming
glitch. No matter which one you select, always be wary of the results until you have
established that all is working well. This may require some amount of checking by hand to
be sure the outputs are correct.
Joe Tank
jramosjr (Civil/Environme)
17 Apr 07
23:17
I'm currently using ITS Design, which is pretty easy to use, plus it includes Add. 4. In a few
weeks they will issue the AWWA D100-05 module. We also have ETank, but it has not been
updated to App. 4. Regardless of the software you choose, you need to be familiar with the
code to be able to interpret the results.
Jorge L. Ramos, Jr., MSCE, PE
Alonso & Carus Iron Works, Inc. (www.alonsocarus.com)

Euro-American Steel Co., Inc. (www.euroamericansteel.com)
19 Apr 07
8:58
Consider re-posting this question in another forum devoted to Aboveground Storage Tanks..
www.ast-forum.com
-MJC
Verify load on roof - API 650 tank

garfo (Mechanical)
11 Jul 07
19:33
I have a small API 650 tank (12' diam), with self-supporting cone roof (3/16") where I need
to install an agitator in a roof center nozzle. The total weight is close to 1000 lbs so I need
to check the loads and probably reinforce the roof accordingly.
Any suggestion about how could the roof be verified against this concentrated load?
11 Jul 07
22:32
Probably the best approach is to put beams across the top of the tank above the roof to
support the load.
You can check loads on a roof like that using the approach in API-620. But it won't account
for bending in the plate, and won't let you check deflections, which could be an issue (IE,
vibrations). The beam approach at least allows you to do a proper design more easily.
12 Jul 07
11:54
I agree with JStephen.....

Remove the cone roof, install a flat roof with integral beams ( I suggest 10" minimum
depth)for agitator support. Relocate vents nozzles etc as necessary.
Size the beams for the bending, deadload and torsionalloads imposed by the agitator. (this
is a new agitator....right ?) These loads are available from the agitator vendor.
The final reinforced tank/mixer roof should look like this:
(See Tank L-4 on this website)
http://www.centralfabricators.com/storagetanks.php
All of this equipment is new, right ? You are not trying to perform "junkyard process plant
design" isn't that right ?
regards
-MJC
garfo (Mechanical)
12 Jul 07
13:31
Thanks for your response. The tank and agitator are new. The tank has a cone roof with
the nozzle for the agitator, and also has some 2" radial angles as partial reinforcement
(angles are not connected to the cilinder). With 3/16" roof thickness, even with a
reinforcing pad, does not seem sturdy enough for the agitator (loads are around 600 ft-lb
torque, 900 lb weight and 1600 ft-lb bending moment).
Removing the roof as suggested should be done only after verifying that the current tank
cannot support the agitator adequately, that is why I am looking for ways to verify this.
For people with previous experience in similar situation, do you have a "feeling" of this
tank been not sturdy enough for the loads I mentioned? I am still looking for a way to to
the calculation to check this, though.
12 Jul 07
13:50
You may be able to install external structure to support the mixer loads. The structure
would have to be tied into vertical supports off the shell plate. The design and analysis for
this option could get pretty involved and would likely require an FEA. The flat roof option
may be easier/cheaper.
13 Jul 07 9:23
Here are some examples of bridges:

http://www.aaronequipment.com/UsedEquipment/Tanks/Stainless++500999+Gal/81737.html
http://www.ecrecon.com/items.php?cat_id=21&item_id=279
-MJC
Stl63 (Structural)
30 Jul 07 9:42
You may have a nozzle for the agitator, but that is typically only for the shaft to
penetrate. The agitator itself is going to need aan elevated flat surface for
mounting. Putting an agitator on a cone roof is just not typically done. Flat roof with
beams is typical.
____________________________________--
Tank Nozzle Load Calculations

merton (Petroleum)
Does anyone have an Excel sheet or know of similar resources that could assist in
27 Feb 07
9:18
calculating nozzle loads for API 650 tanks?

Thanks in advance.
28 Feb 07
9:55
Appendix P offers some assistance, though it currently has constraints based upon tank
size. WRC 107 is commonly used. It is cumbersome to do by hand. There may be
commercial software (such as Coade) that can do the calcs for you.
28 Feb 07
13:22
Check out the alternate design approach in the latest App. P, which is not that
cumbersome, and much simpler than WRC 297, on which it is based.
2 Mar 07
15:08
I wrote a pretty slick excel spreadsheet that designs the nozzles per the alternate design
approach from appendix P. Download it from http://PEStructural.4shared.com/
If you want to see the tables and equations that are included in the spreadsheet, unhide
the rows at the bottom of the spreadsheet.
Please post with any questions.
Mike
8 Mar 07 8:07
Piping & Tamkage

Lower Tank Nozzle in FE-PIPE www.paulin.com
Jupabon (Mechanical)
1 Sep 07
18:13
Hi, I'm trying to use the alternative procedure of the appendix P for nozzle loads, but I don't
understand clearly the difference between "t" and "T". According to the API 650 appendix
P, "t" means: "Thickness of tank shell at location of nozzle" and "T" means "Thickness of
the tank shell at the opening in question". I think that "t" means the nozzle thickness, but
in the same page describe "tn" like the nozzle thickness. I'm really want somebody
explains me the meaning of those terms. Thank you.
API 650 Storage Tank

lcmechengr (Mechanical)
31 Jul 07
18:47
I need to design a stainless steel chemical container/storage tank that will be operating at
atmsopheric condtions and will be protected from vacuum but it will be configured similar
to a vertical pressure vessel with eliptical heads, shell, and support legs welded to the
shell. Does API 650 cover this type of vessel/storage tank? If not, what code or standard
would this need to conform to? Thanks for any help.
31 Jul 07
19:41
This geometry is not covered by the standard US tank standards. API-650 is for flat-bottom
tanks. API-620 includes domed bottoms, but not leg-supported configurations. You can
use ASME Section VIII, although it's not pressurized. It's not uncommon to see something
like this specced to API-650 or API-620 "to the extent applicable".
massad (Mechanical)
1 Aug 07
0:08
You have to follow ASME Sec VIII Div 1 for such kind of design , since there is no internal
pressure so you can use the minimum thickness mentioned in the code , but the vacuum
condition governs the actual thickness of the storage tank or vessel.
BR
Assad
2 Aug 07
8:33
kmechengr,
API-620 covers leg-supported tanks as you have described.
Joe Tank
2 Aug 07
13:00
What is the stored volume ? If it is more than ~ 45,000 g, a shop built tank may not be a
good choice
You may want to consider a tank "deigned, fabricated, inpected and tested to the ASME
Code but not stamped". It is unfortunate that there is no formal category for such a vessel,
although they are common in the US.
My company recently completed a raw material tank farm comprised of many 20,00 g
vertical tanks designed to these requirements. The design pressure of 14 psig ensures a
robust, quality tank and enables the tank to be used for several purposes.
Most ASME fabrication shops are familiar with this type of construction.
My opinion only....
-MJC
COSTASTSAPROUNIS (Mechanical)
18 Aug 07
16:37
Here i can see a conflict.

If you follow ASME you will not consider sloshing effect of the liquid in the tank.
I you follow API 650 you will not take into account the stresses in the heads and the local
stresses of the legs on the skin.
The allowable stresses in both codes have different definitions.
But you have to follow a guide.
Si in my opinion you should follow ASME but but before this examine the ratio of H/D
(height over diameter to see if sloshing is possible).
Costas
Dr. Costas J. Tsaprounis
19 Aug 07
15:46
Hey Guys,
Some of you are not paying attention. API-620 covers this type of construction too. And
seismic sloshing is covered in Appendix L.
Joe Tank
19 Aug 07
15:58
JoeTank:
Yes, API-620 does seem to apply, but the vague phrase "protected from vacuum" must be
evaluated.
I do not believe that an API-620 can be designed to "full vacuum" like an ASME vessel. But,
we have to play another guessing game with the original poster to find the actual service
conditions.
Dr. Costas:
I do not believe that the structural effects of "sloshing" (typically a seismic loading
condition) are a concern of the orignal poster.
My opinion only..
-MJC
Tank Roof Rafter Design

massad (Mechanical)
29 Jul 07 2:09
Dear All ,
I am working on a 60m dia tank for fuel oil. Before I have worked on small diameter
tanks and hence self supported cone/dome/umbralla roof were satisfactory. But now I need
to design a dome roof with rafter on it . Can any one give me an idea about how to proceed
for the structural calculations for the roof . API does not give any information this kind of
design. If any one has any literature or know any websites or books please let me know .
BR
Assad
DSB123 (Mechanical)
29 Jul 07 5:41
massad,
Just a word of caution. If you have not performed calculations before on the structural
design of tank roofs then it may be worthwhile searching for a competent design company
that has. If you are intending to tackle the job yourself then I would submit your calcs to a
competent person, familiar with the process of design, for review.

IFRs (Petroleum)
29 Jul 07 7:36
API 650 covers supported cone roof design in section 5.10 (11th edition) and section 3.10
(10th edition). However, the details are up to you. I agree with DSB123 that your design
should at least be reviewed by an expert.
29 Jul 07
19:12
Dear Massad
First of all define the loads an the load combinations.
(snow, live load, wind etc.)
After this distribute the loads to the rafters.
You can examine strength of the rafters - take care for the bracing- and be careful for the
buckling effects of the rafters especially the lateral torsional buckling.
The strength of the rafters should be examined under some design code (ASCE, EC3 etc).
After having some basic predesign results use a software to see if you have the same
results ( i use SAP2000). But remeber that when you will simulate the material of the roof
plates change the young modulus from the value of steel to a value for a very very soft
material. Otherwise the roof plates will produce a self support phenomenon with
membrane forces.
If you have reasonable reason between your hand made calculations and simulation then
you are in a good way.
The above are the first step for the design .
If you find old drawings from other tanks then use them they will have a lot of experience
included on them.
Designing such a roof is not something easy but it is not so difficult.
Field engineers can help you also with sketches and drawings.
I ll see if i have AUTOCAD drawings for such roofs to send you.
Work Hard
Costas
massad (Mechanical)
31 Jul 07 9:40
Dear Dr. Costas J. Tsaprounis,

Well I have done some basic calculation considering a simply supported straight beam
with trapoizoidal loading . Loading increases as we move towards outer compression ring .
The loads I have conseded in UDL is as you have suggested live load , snow load etc + the
weight of roof plate . I have also considered a lineraly distributed load since the roof plate
would be in pie shape having more material , hence weight towards the end . So combining
these two loadings I got trapoizoidal loading . Using these loading I calculted the maximum
bending moment for the selected section and unsing this moment the maximum bending
stresses and compared them with allowable. Is it also necessary to check it for shear
force . Also is is ok to consider it as a simply supported beam or should I consided it as
fixed beam.
Now the main thing as you have mentioned is lateral torsional buckling . I am still working
on that part . If you have any suggestions , let me know .
BR
Assad
1 Aug 07
3:55
A simple supported beam is a good approach. The reality is simply supported at one end
and at the other end a torsional spring which represent the torsional stiffness of the ring.
Becarefull on the bracing in order to define exactly the maximum free length.
Costas Tsaprounis
1 Aug 07
4:20
Let is try to built up a sort of check list ..kind of screening...

Of course feel free to add extra points....
1/-Your tank is 60 m diam.
2/-How is your roof slope ?? (1/6 = 9 degree.. or something similar)
It should appear after calcs that the deflection would not allow to water to accumulate
(ponding)
3/How long is your rafter ?
probably longer than 30 meter ...this could be built up out of several standard lengths...
4/-What are your loads ( on the rafter) , if I remember from API 650 it is = 25 psf live load
(LD)+ 20 psf dead load (DL) of the roof + own weight of all beams
the 25 and 20 psf will give a trapezoidal distribution on the rafter ( small near centerline..)
5/-What is the distance between two adjacent rafters on the shell side ?
According to API 650 , this shall not exceed (2*3.14 * foot )= 1. 9 meter.
6/-How are the reactions transmitted to the tank walls?
( rafters connected to a brackets , which are welded to the inner wall of the shell or
something equivalent)
Do to the roof slope , you will get also radial loads on the walls
7/-Do you have headers ( a ring of beam between centerline and tank edge ( at say
OD/4 to support the subrafters?
You might need them , because you can not have all rafters all running from center to tank
wall
8/-Do you have subrafters ?
This is because you want to keep those 1.9 m distance...
9/-How are rafters supported near the tank centerline ?? ( on a ring ? on a column ?)
The ring will take the horizontal reactions (again because of the slope) ...
I am trying to do something on roof and trying to exchange info..on another site ( astforum) but apprently all the guys are on leave...(lol)
----Fathi
massad (Mechanical)
5 Aug 07
9:33
Hello All ,
Well I have almost done with some calculations , just need one suggestion , do I go for
dome roof with rafters or dome roof with rafters and internal column. Also after what
diamter should internal columns should be used .
Also DSB123 how can I send my calculaitons for review
BR
Assad
IFRs (Petroleum)
5 Aug 07
21:21
The decision to use a column or not should be purely economic - evaluate the materials,
fabrication and erection costs for each and the answer should become obvious. If you are
considering internal columns, would you consider several columns and a simple cone
roof? For a supported dome roof, I'd design the structure independent of the roof plates
using FEA. You could use a triangulated structure similar to typical "geodesic" style
aluminum dome roofs, or use radial arches with some depth with a compression ring in the
middle and a tension ring at the outer edge. This is a large enough roof that you would
benefit from engaging a firm or consultant that has done them before in this size. It's not
economic for you to reinvent the wheel!
_________________________________________________________________-
Wind and Overturning in API 650

Elrae (Industrial)
18 Sep 07
15:24
I've been out of API for some time and things have changed. I need some help.
Used to be you looked at overturning like this;
Pressure * Area (height * Diameter) * (height /2) (for shell)
plus
(Pressure * Area ((diameter * height of roof) /2) * (Centroid of roof + height of tank)
We then converted the moment found above to uplift to evaluate anchorage.
Now the wind pressure on the roof is in uplift but the overturning calculations are still in
moment.
Can I just disregard the term uplift and calculate overturning moment like I used to? If not,
what is expected now?
Any help is appreciated.
There are some inconsistencies in the current API approach.
18 Sep 07
17:17
You calculate moment about one edge of the tank, including the uplift force on the roof,
and neglecting lateral load on the roof. So you have horizontal pressure x projected shell
area x half the shell height plus vertical pressure x cross-sectional area x radius. Then use
the indicated equations to check for overturning.
For the overturning check, this works okay. However, when you use this wind moment
moment to figure anchorage, it is overly conservative. The practical difference is not
usually that large, though.
18 Sep 07
17:40
So, if I understand, although we calculated uplift on the roof, we use the result as the
moment in the calculations for overturning. Is this correct? If so, then I presume that this
value, Mw, would also be used in the evaluation of anchor bolt tension, 3.11.3, and
anchorage, 3.12.2. Is this also correct?
19 Sep 07
8:11
That is the way I understand it.

kvbalu (Mechanical)
20 Sep 07
5:05
What requirements other than Process conditions dictate the requirement of PWHT of
Plates for Storage Tanks as per API 650 ?
27 Sep 07
19:23
kybalu,
You should have started another thread with your question. However, since I was
interested in this thread, I have read your question and will respond.
In API 650, tanks built with group 1, 2, or 3 materials that exceed 1" in thickness are
required to have nozzles 12" in diameter or greater installed into insert plates and stress
relieved prior to installation into the tank. Additionally, if the tank us made using group 4
or higher materials and the thickness exceeds 1/2", all nozzles that require reinforcement
are required to be installed into an insert and stress relieved prior to installation into the
tank. In additiona to these nozzles, all clean-out doors, regardless of materials used are
required to be stress relieved prior to installation into the tank. There may also be a
requirement to stress relieve flush-type nozzles but I would have to look that one up to
confirm.
Hope this helps
LeonEarle
Elrae (Industrial)
11 Oct 07
12:26
JStephen,
In your reply, you indicated that the uplift was to be multiplied by the cross-sectional
area. In API, they indicate that it is to be multiplied by the "horizontal projected area". I
have searched and searched and can not find how to calculate "horizontal projected
area". The projected area of a cone is diameter * height of cone / 2. Is this the same as
"horizontal projected area"?
Thanks
IFRs (Petroleum)
12 Oct 07
14:41
Horizontal projection area is simply the area of the tank when looking straight down on the
tank from above ( diameter squared timex pi divided by 4). Your calculation is for vertical
projection area which might be used for overturning but not uplift.
rab1944 (Structural)
17 Oct 07
16:52
For an API 650 F and S tank with a design temperature in excess of the API 620 250 degree
limit, what is the best approach in choosing the allowable stress for an umbrella roof
design?
Assessing annular plate thickness of an old angle

16 Nov 07
16:59
Could you please give more light on annular plate thickness.

I am actually looking for a clearer interpretation of API 653.
I mean assuming the remaining tank life is known or fixed.
And the annular plate thickness is less the the original thickness less corrosion
allowance...HOW TO PROCEED FURTHER
tHANKS
19 Nov 07
10:17
You always have three options in API-653...

Repair the tank by replacing the annular ring or repair the appropriate areas.
Rerate the tank by lowering the product level to accomdate the thin annular ring.
Retire the tank.
Joe Tank
19 Nov 07
11:40
Thanks JoeTank...
But before going to the above..I thought that one can also determine if there is enough
remaining corrosion thickness left over to the next inspection to operate the equipment
without jeopardizing its integriy.
Actually my question is what is the minimum acceptable annular bottom thickness
including remaining thickness, according to API 653.
For instance API 579 which is a complementary standard to API 653 (and also some others(
has three assessement levels .
Level 1 is for items with a STRAIGHT relation Pressure versus thickness.
Level 2 is for other items like flanges , BOTTOM PLATE, Tubesheets,etc..

Level 3 is complicated = finite elements.
This API 597 gives a lot of tips and formula on how to accept, de-rate or reject an items by
conducting an assessment with level 2 for instance.
My problem is I do not know how to handle An annular plate with level II !!
19 Nov 07
12:51
cartargo
Minimum annular bottom plate thickness is determined per API-653, Section 4.4.8.
Joe Tank
API 650 - Max internal pressure above liqu

8 Nov 07
6:00
I need some help, I am a bit lost , please....I shall explain:

I always though that for API 650 the maximum internal pressure is 2.5 inches water column
or 25 psi!!
( by the way is it GAGE or ABSOLUTE ??).
1/-Is this limit of 2.5" water column correct ?
If pressure is a higher then above One has to use appendix F.
And also watch out the vertical component due to this pressure ? Pressure * Tank section
area.
----------------------------2/-I have seen lately an API 650 tank data sheet with
design pressure = 1013 mbarg ( gage (
This is equal to 210 psig
Is this normal or is there a mistake in my interpretation
This > the 2.5"water column or not !!
Thanks
pleckner (Chemical)
8 Nov 07
7:01
API 650 internal design pressure limit is 2.5 PSIG. The external design pressure limit is 1"
WC.
1 bar = 14.5038 psi
You need to re-evaluate your conversion and decimal point location. Perhaps you mean
1.013 mbarg and not 1013 mbarg? 1.013 mbarg would give you about 0.41" WC.
8 Nov 07
7:29
Pleckner,
You are right...thanks a lot
8 Nov 07
10:25
cartago...
Where will this pressureized equipment, that you have been working on be installed ?
I live in Western Pennsylvania..... will it be near me ?
MJC
Floor Plate Projection distance problem

KiwiTanks (Industrial)
4 Feb 08
22:49
Can anyone tell me why API650 asks for a minimum 50mm (2 inches) floor plate projection
from the outside of the shell?
I have a contractor who has ended up with 45mm (just less than 1-13/16") and hence the
tank does not strictly comply with API650.
For tanks already in service, API653 would reign, and the minimum could then drop to
9.5mm (3/8 inch).
So what is the main purpose for the 50mm. Is it something to do with the HAZ? to allow for
proper sealing? or just good amount?
Ideas anyone?
5 Feb 08 8:53
Kiwi..
I believe that I read that the minimum floor plate distance involves the resistance to
rotation that is desired at the bottom of the shell. This slight roation occurs when the tank
is full and varies with the tank design as well as the liquid SG.
If the distance is too short, then the tank is (slightly)more prone to rotation at the shell to
floor joint.
Try posting on this forum www.ast-forum.com
Regards and please tell us what you find out
-MJC
5 Feb 08 9:51
The chime provides distribution of the shell weight onto the earthen subgrade so may have
to be greater than 2" sometimes. If it's on a concrete ringwall it is less critical. Either way
the Standard now requires a minimum of 2".
Joe Tank
gdubyuh (Mechanical)
6 Feb 08
17:29
If this is a shop fabricated tank, designed per App. J, J.3.2.3 still requires just the 1" + weld
thickness outside the shell.
As a matter of consistency, I design all tanks (including App. J tanks) with the 2" chime.
6 Feb 08
17:36
This is a 19.5m dia tank constructed on an existing foundation. The spec and drawings all
show "50mm min" but it's not what we've ended up with.
I think that originally the annulars were cut to the correct diameter (with no allowance)
then the tank has been fabricated using the top down method (jacking the tank roof and
shell strake by strake from the ground). The bottom strake of the shell may now be approx
10mm larger diameter than originally proposed, (hence the 5mm each side too small)
7 Feb 08
15:17
Kiwi,
Are you the tank fabricator or the poor inspector that is stuck with this problem?
Joe Tank
7 Feb 08
16:24
JoeTank,
I'm the client's designer / engineer (and also API guy), and noticed this when I went for a
site visit after the tank has been constructed and was being painted.
The Client has their own staff monitoring the job, but obviously weren't checking these
details. They are more involved in safety.
So I guess I'm kinda stuck with it. Not sure what (if anything) can be done about it. All
comments welcome
IFRs (Petroleum)
7 Feb 08
22:14
What type of foundation is there under the shell?

7 Feb 08
22:18
The foundation is an Earth mound with asphalt over-lay

IFRs (Petroleum)
7 Feb 08
22:22
How extensive is the problem?

7 Feb 08
22:28
The floor plate projection (chime) is the same the whole way around the tank - 5mm short
8 Feb 08
10:11
Kiwi,
The 2" projection is just a nominal dimension. It's not based upon a stress analysis, it's just
a practical figure. The recent API actions to make it 2" for all tanks with either sketch
plates or annular plates was based on practical considerations and provide one set of rules,
not two. I'd figure out a way to have all parties accept it. Trying to rework it would do
more harm than good.
Joe Tank
UBC 1997 and API 650 11th Ed.

9 Jan 08
10:59
I have come across this situation many times lately and I would like to hear your
opinion. Most of the designers, when writing specs for steel tanks, use "generic" specs just
becasue they are not familar with API 650 or AWWA D100-05 Standards. When specifying
the seimic design requirements, all they mention is that it shall be in accordance with the
UBC 1997.
As you all know, UBC specifies seismic zones (1, 2, 3 , 4 and 5) while API 650/AWWA D10005 now specifies seimic use groups (I, II and III). I understand that API and AWWA
incorporate by reference the seismic design criteria presented in ASCE 7. However, the
criteria presented in ASCE 7 is quite different to that presented in UBC 1997. How are you
meeting the requirements of both codes (UBC 1997 and API 650)? The current design code
here in Puerto Rico is the UBC 1997. Should I continue designing tanks as per UBC 1997 or
should I design them per Appendix E? Which do you think is more strict?
IFRs (Petroleum)
9 Jan 08
11:03
Designing to 10 year old codes is bound to give you fits - I'd use API Appendix E if possible.
pmover (Mechanical)
9 Jan 08
22:03
Your question should be directed to your client. Appraise the client of the differences, the
advantages/disadvantages, and any cost differences.
Yes, so often individuals that write the specs do not know that conflicts exists between
stds. I believe this is simply because they do not know or care to read the
stds/ref's. Chances are that you may not get a timely or adequate response from your
client.
Short of getting a response from the client, find out which std has precedence and adhere.
My opinion only - me being a cautious individual, choosing the most technically sound
choice (less risky) is preferred.
Good Luck!
pmover
IFRs (Petroleum)
9 Jan 08
23:34
Question to the owner: If there is a failure and your tank leaks poison into the
groundwater, is your defense going to be "I was told to use a 10 year old code" even
though you knew there was a more current code avaialable and accepted by the specific
industry?
10 Jan 08
12:47
Thank you all for your replies. When I present this situation to the owners/designers, the
most common response we are getting is "use UBC 1997 requirements." But, my
engineeering judgement always tell me to use the the current design standard (API 650 Ed.
11th or AWWA D100-05) and that's waht we have been doing. And anyways, we as tank
manufacturers are responsible for the tank design.
Is there any correlation between seismic zones and seismic use groups? I know that there
is a correlation table in AWWA D100-05 between occupancy catergories and SUGs.
10 Jan 08
21:14
There simply isn't a good answer to the question.

Most of the applications I've dealt with always required the "latest revision" of whatever I
was working with. And in some codes, this is required, either by the code itself, or by a
replace-this-page updating which effectively destroys your "old" code anytime you
update. ASME B&PV is a good example of this.
It was recently pointed out to me in the Structural Forum that in fact most governmental
building codes are not set up this way. A city or state will require a specific year of the UBC
or IBC codes. That code in turns specifies a specific year of the ASCE 7 and other
standards. ASCE 7 then specifies a specific year of AWWA or API standards. But this
conflicts with the information included in the standards themselves. So using the latest
standard may seem the thing to do, but you could just as easily be asked, "Why didn't you
comply with this building code that required the 19xx Standard?" You also lose a couple of
years in each reference, so the building code in 2008 will be the IBC from 2005, which
requires ASCE 7 from 2002, which requires API from 1999, which references ASTM A36 from
1996, and so on down the line.
In actual practice, I haven't had any trouble with consultants or owners or plan reviewers
questioning what version was used for design. It may help to note that API itself specifies
when the new standard becomes effective, so anything that requires an older version is
automatically contradicted by the standard itself.
gdubyuh (Mechanical)
18 Jan 08
16:38
When I am designing a tank to API-650 that is subject to seismic loading, I will notify the
customer of my preference to use App. E with ASCE 7-05 seismic acceleration coefficients,
site class, etc. If a client insists on using some other standard (such as UBC 97, IBC, etc), I
will design the tank in COMPRESS vessel software (with a flat bottom) and use the
requested standard in COMPRESS. I then take the overturning moment obtained in
COMPRESS, and substitute that value as the ringwall moment in App. E, and complete the
calculations per App. E.
Intermediate windgirders required for cone roof tanks

IFRs (Petroleum)
9 Jan 08
10:50
API 650 11th edition (and previous editions):

5.9 TOP AND INTERMEDIATE STIFFENING RINGS
5.9.1 General
An open-top tank shall be provided with stiffening rings to maintain roundness when the
tank is subjected to wind loads.
Question: Where does API require wind girders for closed-top (cone roof) tanks?
The only reference I can find is in Note 2 on page 5-58 which says "This formula is intended
to cover tanks with either open tops or closed tops and is based on the following factors...",
which implies that cone roof tanks should be evaluated for wind induced shell
buckling. Howver, this is digging pretty deep and could easily be overlooked since it is
buried deep within 5.9.6
9 Jan 08
22:55
IFR,
The Code criteria for the top stiffener of an open top tank is intended to minimize
distortions or flexing under wind loads. The Code design criteria for intermediate stiffeners
is somewhat different in that it is also based upon spacing requirements to reduce the
potential for shell buckling between the stiffeners. As to whether the rules for intermediate
stiffeners are for both cone roof and open top tanks, the answer is yes. The footnotes that
explain the design basis even mentions that the a 5 psf external pressure allowance is
included to account for drag (suction) forces for an open top tank or for the typical vacuum
set pressures for vacuum relief devices use on fixed roof tanks. I have never understood
that the rules should not be applied to cone or dome roof tanks.
Joe Tank
IFRs (Petroleum)
9 Jan 08
23:11
Mr Tank - I never understood that the rules should not apply to cone roof tanks but then
again I'm always open to learning new things and people keep asking me to help them
read the code. A person reading API 650 would easily find that intermediate siffening rings
apply to open top tanks. However it is not as obvious that closed top tanks require the
same analysis. Usually API is clear on what is intended and deliberately silent when not
intending to include a topic. In this case open-top tanks are specifically referred to but
closed-top tanks are not mentioned except in obscure, somewhat sideways references. I
have always included intermediate stiffeners in closed-top tank designs, yet I can't quite
quote API to justify the expense. Thanks for your confirmation that I have not been too far
off base all these years!
IFRs (Petroleum)
9 Jan 08
23:30
Another way to ask the question is:

Why is section 5.9.1 written as it is if all tanks are intended to be evaluated the same
way? Why single out open-top tanks?
Presumably because open-top tanks are special.
10 Jan 08
5:32
I believe one has to make a difference between 2 things:

1/- Primary wind girders ( for open tanks alone), this ring keeps the shap of the upper edge
of the shell.
2/- Secondary or intermediate wind girders ( for both= open or with roofs)..These rings are
a bit similar to the one used for ASME VIII for cylinder under external pressure where one
uses or calculates the maximum length of a stable shell,ect..
This is clear in Old BS or the new EN standards for storage tanks , where you have
exemples for calculation..
You will notice that they both used the same figures.
IFRs (Petroleum)
10 Jan 08
16:22
Here is the answer:

API 650 section 5.6.1.4 says to check all shells for wind buckling and then sends you to
5.9.7 to do so, which conveniently skips over 5.9.1 which was the source of the question.
10 Jan 08
16:59
Mr. IFR,
It sounds as if we agree that cone roof (and dome roof) tank shell are to be checked for the
need of intermediate wind stiffeners. I think your point about API-650 not being clear
enough about that is worth discussing. However, the real discussion should be between
you and API. Why don't you make your case to API and ask that they clarify the
point. They are reaaly nice folk and respond fairly well to requests like this.
Joe Tank
Uplift from wind and Overturning - Anchorage

3 Jun 08
11:19
Gentlemen,
A. How to apply 5.2.1.j.2?
1. Calculate value for F.4.1
2. Convert F.4.1 * 1.6 to moment
3. Calculate moment resulting from pressure Mpi 5.11.2 (could be zero)
4. Calculate moment from horizontal wind
5. Calculate moment from vertical wind - but not greater than (moment from F.4.1 * 1.6 Mpi)
6. Add moment from horizontal wind and lesser of vertical wind or (moment from F.4.1 *
1.6 - Mpi) for Mw
If this is not how to apply 5.2.1.j.2, then how is it applied?
B. What do you do with the negative number from F.4.2 on large tanks when all other
values calculate positive?
Thanks!!!
pmover (Mechanical)
3 Jun 08
14:29
it would be helpful if you identified the reference std or spec your are quoting. people can
guess, but . . .
good luck!
-pmover
3 Jun 08
14:32
Standard applicable to this question is API 650, 11th Edition.

4 Jun 08
15:35
A. I would recommend forgetting about the overturning moments initially. Simply

determine the combined uplift pressure from wind and design internal pressure. This total
value must be less than or equal to 1.6P with P being calculated per F.4.1 Therefore, you
should use the combined uplift pressure of wind and design internal pressure unless it
exceeds 1.6P, at which time you should use 1.6P as the uplift pressure. From here you can
calculate the contributing overturning moment and add it to that calculated from the wind
pressure on the shell.
B. From F.4.2 it would appear that when this formula yields a negative result that the tank
has no additional capacity for uplift due to internal pressure. In fact, it could be viewed to
indicate that the tank requires anchorage simply due to the wind moment, and if the tank
were to be anchored this would make F.4.2 n/a and you would be referred to F.7. I have not
analyzed the corelation (if any) between F.4.2 and 5.11.2, but it could be an interesting
exercise.
4 Jun 08
15:47
TankDude,
I think we are essentially doing the same thing. If there is no pressure on the tank, F.4.2
does not enter into the calculation. Where there is pressure, if this limit is not applied,
there is always a negative value. In the designs I have done recently using the limit, F.4.2
does not calculate a negative number although the amount of pressure allowed is
extremely small. I think your method may be simpler though. Thanks
______________________________
API 650 Annular Plate Function
99491 (Mechanical)
3 Apr 08
11:28
Will someone please tell me what is the exact function the annular ring under the tank
shell. According to API 650 sect 5.5 an annular ring is soley dependant on the stress in the
bottom course. According to BS 2654 a tank over 12.5m dia must have an annular ring. I
would like to know why the annular is necessary? Because butt welded the completely flat
and even surface makes the shell to bottom weld much stronger but there must be more.
Please assist.
3 Apr 08
12:07
In API-650 the annular rings are required for tanks designed with higher strength
material. These materails are normally used only for larger diameter tanks. The higher
stresses and larger diameters lead to significantly greater rotations of the shell-to-bottom
joint. That leads to higher bending stresses in the annular plate... hence the requirements
for special design, constructiona nd NDE provisions. There are also cyclic considerations
built into the API annular plate tables.
Joe Tank
3 Apr 08
12:56
The bottom plate acts as a radial restraint on the shell, and is subject to some radial and/or
hoop stress as the tank size and design stress increases.
99491 (Mechanical)
22 May 08
11:27
Thanks for the reply.

Why would you than ever have annulars the same thickness as the bottom should the
stress not exceed the parameters set out in 5.5.3. For example if you have a bottom course
of , 19mm and a stress < 220 the annular plates are 6mm. How is this annular ring
assisting in any way if the bottom plate is also 6mm.
22 May 08
16:59
The shell plate carries the tensile HOOP stress of the product. The annular plate is
subjected to a very low radial load but a very high radial bending load. The API procedures
look at secondary bending in the annular plate, considers cyclic conditions and specifies an
appropriate thickness, which is sometimes only 6mm. Selection is a function how much
shell rotation occurs, which is dependent upon hoop stress level in the shell and tank
diameter.
Joe Tank
API 650 - When to use anchor bolts

20 Jun 08
3:09
API 650 tanks with earthquake and wind

I never understood correctly when to use anchor bolts or not ?
Of course I' d rather avoid them !
Which
Check
Check
Check
criteria are used to lnow of anchor bolt are required or not ?

if bolt tensioning is positive ?
if stress with sismic are high at annular plate ?
if there is a wind overturning ?
I am a bit confused...
Any straight procedure or specific litterature ??
thanks a lot
IFRs (Petroleum)
20 Jun 08
5:57
You use them anytime there is a calculated uplift. Internal pressure, wind and seismic each
or together can trigger anchors. API 650 is pretty clear on this, I think.
20 Jun 08
8:21
Due to the way the standard is set up, you can calculate positive bolt tension even in cases
where you don't need anchor bolts.
See 5.11.2, E.6.2.1.1.1, Fig. F-1, etc, in the 11th Edition.
23 Jun 08
4:57
Gentlmen,
Thank you for the tips.
plantguyjj (Mechanical)
22 Oct 08
18:22
Will someone please explain how the anchor bolts are subjected a net uplift by internal
pressure alone, with no wind or seismic? The first load case in Table 3-21 for uplift due to
design pressure only seems to evaluate the shell separation from the floor, how would this
case by itself trigger the need for anchorage?
thanks
22 Oct 08
20:04
The bottom plate isn't rigid enough to resist loading acting as a flat plate. It depends on
the soil underneath it to support it. What would actually happen if you overpressured an
unanchored empty tank is that the shell would lift up several inches or more. The bottom
plate near the shell would lift up with it, and would still be resting on the foundation back
away from the shell.
What does this mean

Insincere (Mechanical)
13 Feb 09
4:42
Tank with fixed cover and inside floating membrane ?

13 Feb 09
8:49
Ask whoever wrote it to clarify.

Sounds like they want a fixed roof and internal floating roof, though.
13 Feb 09
13:06
They said Floating membrane will be procured from abroad.This membrane will water tight
and annex system for each of reservior according with the requirement API650 Annex H
13 Feb 09
13:56
Appendix H is internal floating roofs, if that helps. Sounds like a translation issue.
13 Feb 09
14:32
Translation of roof?
Bonswa (Mechanical)
13 Feb 09
22:00
You've all hit it on the head.

They're talking about an internal floating roof. I've heard some overseas companies
referring to the floating roof deck as a "membrane". Whether internal or external, they're
referring to the roof plates them selfes as a whole. Not the pontoon deck. the "annex
system for each of reservior" i would assume would be the pontoons. not exactly sure what
the "annex system" is though.
Sounds like the internal floating roof is going to be made off-site (abroad) and installed in
your tank.
Google "tank roof membrane" and you'll see some tank companies referring to floating roof
decks as membranes.
14 Feb 09
8:29
Benzine is the product use in this tank

IFRs (Petroleum)
14 Feb 09
14:27
It's definitly going to be a tank with a fixed roof (either steel cone, umbrella or dome or an
aluminum dome) and an internal floating roof (either aluminum or steel, either full-contact
or non-contact). For more specifics (seal(s), etc) you will need the applicable
governmental, local and industry rules and someone who can interpret them for you.
15 Feb 09
6:16
What could be the reason of using internal floating roof?

IFRs (Petroleum)
15 Feb 09
7:14
The internal floating roof will reduce the evaporation losses from the liquid surface and
help keep impurities out of the liquid.
gr2vessels (Mechanical)
15 Feb 09
21:15
Insincere ( it sounds a bit dodgy...),

The mentioned benzine is in fact gasoline and the storage of this product is subject of
major local and international regulations. The design, fabrication, testing and operating of
such facility is restricted to personnel and businesses familiar with those Codes, standards
and local regulations. From the reading of your other similar posts, I imagine that you are
am ambitious person, hell bent to learn overnight the secret of pressure vessel design,
tank design and the purchasing of internal floating roof for a storage tank, if possible to
squeeze in also, some tank farm operating procedures in one go...
I hope to not disappoint you, but it will take a little longer and take IFRs advice because is
very sound. However, if you really intend to start somewhere learning this trade, ask many
question in this forum, don't be shy. You'll learn a lot...
Cheers,
gr2vessels
______________________________________API 650 Appendix F Internal Pressure requirement

issue
mechanicaldude400 (Mechanical)
17 Mar 09
21:55
Hello,
I was wondering if someone could could help me out with a API 650 code issue I am having
in regards to appendix F, designing tanks with small internal pressures:
I am designing a tank where the internal pressures exceed the weight of the shell, roof,
and framing but do not exceed 18 kPa. Does this mean that only the requirements in F.7
are applicable and the requirements in F.3 through F.6 are not applicable?
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks,
Generally so. What is it specifically you're wondering about?
18 Mar 09
7:37
Once you get into F.7, it refers you back to API-620, so you have some similar requirements
for area and all. To design the anchorage, you need to calculate a failure pressure, and if
you don't use the method in F.6, then the standard leaves you without any guidance on
how to do it.
hsevp (Petroleum)
24 Mar 09
8:40
What is the outlook/ expected trend for api tank repair over the next 5-10 years? Have the
regulatory changes in 2004, etc. started to drive more inspections thus more repairs?
Shop Fabricated Tank Size

xema77 (Mechanical)
23 Apr 09
10:55
What is the reason for capping the tank diameter at 6m (20ft) in API 650 Appendix J? If the
transportation envelope is such that it permits a larger diameter tank to be shop fabricated
is this acceptable?
JohnGP (Mechanical)
23 Apr 09
17:00
xema77,
Shop fabricating subjects a tank to additional loadings that a site fabricated tank doesn't
experience. I don't have direct knowledge regarding the 6m diameter limitation imposed
by Appendix J in API 650, but imagine that some thought was put into how big you could
easily fabricate a tank in a "shop", using the nominal minimum plate thicknesses, then lift
and transport it to its intended location.
Certainly it is feasible to shop fabricate tanks larger than 6m diameter. We have on my
present project, mainly due to the high cost of site fabrication in this instance. The largest
was over 13m diameter, and weighed a bit over 130 MT because of some internal bits.
Most were around the 11-12m diameter weighing around 50MT with top platforms. While
Appendix J is not applicable for tanks over 6m, its requirements were taken into
consideration for our tanks - such as butt welding of floors, and lifting lugs design.
Additional stiffening and lugs were also provided for transport restraint (both road and
sea), and floors restrained during lifts.
Regards,
John
FTank (Mechanical)
23 Apr 09
19:04
In Canada, specifically Alberta, we can ship items as wide as 24 ft. on special low-bed
trucks. When writing a tank specification using API 650 Appendix F as the reference, we reword par. J.1.1 (modification) so as to allow up to 7.163 m (23.5 ft.) Dia. tanks. The reason
we max. out at 23.5 ft. is to allow for additional thicknesses like insulation or if
unavoidable, nozzle projections so that the overall width of the shipping envelope does not
exceed 24 ft. The tank height is dependant on the trucking company's imagination, but
very seldom exceeds 32 ft. Of course most of these tanks require anchor chairs for wind
loading & internal design pressures from Appendix F (very common in our industry).
As far as xema77's concern regarding additional loadings, he is quite correct if the tank
shell is only 3/16" nom. thickness, there is a good chance that the tank shell will "egg
shell" during transportation, causing amongst other things, a detremental affect to the
interior coatings. This is why we also modify par. J.3.3 so that the nominal thickness of the
shell plates is not less than 1/4". We also provide "shipping shoes" so that the tank shell or
the insulation does not make direct contact with the truck deck.
Just as a footnote, we specify 1/4" as the min. nominal thickness on field erected tanks also
as 3/16" tends to distort during welding, resulting in an unacceptable appearance to our
clients.
JohnGP (Mechanical)
23 Apr 09
19:14
Yes, we had a similar modification to shell thickness such that it was not less than 6mm.
Shipping width at the fabrication shop was an issue. The fabricator was near a port in an
industrial area, but some of the street hardware, such as light poles and signs, had to be
temporarily removed during tank transfers. There was a port at the project site, with direct
road access, so not an issue there.
24 Apr 09
11:42
I'm sure part of the thinking was just standard practice as to what is field erected vs what
is shop fabricated
API 650 11th Edition 5.11.2 Unanchored Tanks

SANJCALG (Mechanical)
1 Jul 09 19:34
MDL is a moment about the shell-to-bottom joint from the weight of the shell and roof
supported by the shell. Is this weight to be considered in corroded condition or new tank
weight?
Thanks.

IFRs (Petroleum)
2 Jul 09 7:37
I believe you can use the as-designed shell thickness under the assumption that corrosion
would be localized and not general thinning of the steel.
2 Jul 09 10:09
I agree with IFRs. I think this is also something that should be made more clear in the
standard. And it's not clear to me if this was actually the intent of the writers, or just the
result of poor wording or oversight.
See the definition of Dead Load in 5.2.1. Also note the usage of "nominal" (= "as-built")
roof thickness in App. F, sections F.1.2, F.4.1, F.4.2, etc.
Note that when calculating uplift forces on anchor bolts, the corroded thicknesses are used.
786392 (Petroleum)
Dear SANGCALG Hello/Good Afternoon,
3 Jul 09 7:40
May I, Just add slightly from a somewhat different perspective of corrosion.

Since Corrosion is most usually oxidation(i.e.oxygen is added and weight slightly increased
per unit area;with the exception if it is peeled-off/ removed.)
Whereas usually it stays-on& should be witnessed clinging and associated on to the
surfaces; therefore most probably this weight increase
And consequent possible momentum factor increase on this account is not considered
greatly affecting from an overall perspective by the Standard related personnel.
Hope this gives some explanation to your query.I believe!
Best Regards
Qalander(Chem)
SANJCALG (Mechanical)
3 Jul 09 9:45
Thank you all for your input. For anchored tanks it is specifically corroded weight and
hence I had a confusion. The same concept is also implied in appendix V. It is the
uncorroded thickness unless the corrosion is uniform and all over.
3 Jul 09 16:50
In the wind stability calculations, the as-built thickness is used also, and there again, it is
assuming that average thickness is not affected much, just localized thinning.
Api 650 11th Ed. Addendum 1 Anchorage Ratio

calculation
CDiaz (Mechanical)
24 Apr 09
12:30
In the Addendum 1 of the API 650 11th Edition there is a change in the calculation of the
Anchorage Ratio J. There is a new parameter wint (calculated design uplift load due to
product pressure per unit circumferential length).
Can anybody explain me what does this term means and how can I calculate it?
rwaterguy (Chemical)
20 Jun 09
2:09
See AWWA D100-5 Welded Steel Tank For Water Storage. J is a simple idea but the
emperical formula requires the the AWWA code. It is probably related to the API 650
Stability Ratio.
J = Ms/(D2{wt*(1-0.4*Av)+wl}.
Ms is the overturning moment.
See page 147 & 148 AWWA D100-S
20 Jun 09
13:39
I don't keep up with API 650 however I believe that the "J" factor that you are refering to
deals with the effects of overturning loads on the base of tanks and the related effects on
tensionn on bolts and compression on the footing. I have included a .JPEG attachment of a
page on tubular steel structures for you review. There are three more pages about this
article so if you think that you are interested,I'll include them as attachments
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=4b2a8315-b463-47d7-94df-36
21 Jun 09
10:33
"calculated design uplift load due to product pressure per unit circumferential length"
If the tank is an atmoshperic tank, then it would be zero.
If the tank is an Appendix F tank, then it would be internal pressure times cross-sectional
area of the tank divided by circumference, all with consistent units of course. Final number
in lbs/ft to match the rest of the equation.
Storage tank design with API 650

69020211 (Petroleum)
3 Aug 09
0:50
Hi dear all,
I am a mechanical engineer.I work in gas & oil company. I want learn about "Storage Tank
Design" (fixed roof and floating roof tanks). I am only in my job. Do you help me about this
matter (for example a guide line note)? By the way I love this job.
Many thanks
Ahmad
Integritygroup (Mechanical)
3 Aug 09
7:28
Maybe is better if you use API 653 (inspection and repair), if your job is with tanks
constructed already. API 650 is for design and construction of tanks.
Motorspirit (Petroleum)
4 Aug 09
4:34
If you can get your hands on either of the following books you will learn a lot:
Above Ground Storage Tanks - Philip Myers
Guide to Storage Tanks and Equipment - B Long & B Gardner
Good luck
Seismic Design
99491 (Mechanical)
16 Apr 09
4:18
Does anyone know where to get more information regarding the seismic design in API 650
appendix E. Mainly information on the mapped maximum earthquake for short periods/ for
1 sec period/ 0 second period and then for the ground acceleration.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
16 Apr 09
5:35
For the Australian conditions, you can get all the information needed in the AS 1170;- for
other parts of the world, use the appropriate local standards. For United States, use the
American standards. For India, use the Indian standards and for Europe, conversely, use
the local European standards.
Cheers,
gr2vessels
IFRs (Petroleum)
17 Apr 09
6:15
For the USA, use http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/ and click on

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/download.php then use
ASCE 2005 and plug in your zip code.
99491 (Mechanical)
17 Apr 09
10:38
Thanks IFR.
Useful programme. Do you know of any such programmes for locations outside the USA?
99491 (Mechanical)
17 Apr 09
10:38
Thanks IFR.
Useful programme! Do you know of any such programmes for locations outside the USA?
IFRs (Petroleum)
17 Apr 09
23:32
Not that I know of - sorry!

vesselguy (Petroleum)
21 Apr 09
9:57
99491
I assume you know that Appendix E.4.3 allows you to use load factors from other building
codes with its equations. I have to use NBCC and other regional building code to obtain
the numbers you mentioned for work in Canada. Hence, I'm sure you can do the same for
where ever you're working in by looking them up in that country's building code. good
luck.
HTCivil (Structural)
3 Aug 09
16:10
An important reminder regarding the use of seismic parameters in appendix E:

If you use the mapped values obtained in the ASCE 7 maps or USGS calculator, be sure to
inspect the equations you plug them into. Some of the equations require SITE-SPECIFIC
values obtained directly from a detailed geotech report (see E.4.2). For example, there are
two sets of equations to calculate spectral acceleration parameters Ai and Ac. E.4.6.1 is
for mapped values, and E.4.6.2 is for site-specific. Most of the US may use the mapped
values, but tank design here in Southern California nearly always requires site-specific
information.
Overturning stability - Unanchored tanks

skn4 (Mechanical)
22 Sep 09
12:06
Hello All,
I have the latest copy of API 650 11th Edition, June 2007, Addendum 1 Nov 2008.
I am designing a cone roof tank that is atmospheric and have a few queries with regards to
the formula for working out MF and Liquid weight WL.
In the Code clause 5.11.2 states that unanchored tanks must satisfy equations:
1. 0.6Mw + Mpi < MDL/1.5
2. Mw + 0.4Mpi < (MDL+MF)/2
Mpi = 0 as tank is atmospheric.
With regards to finding the value for MF am i correct in saying that we use the formula:
WL = 59.tb x SQRT Fby.H (N/m)
This gives us the force from a band of liquid acting at the shell per meter....which we then
multiply by the circumference of the tank to get the total force acting around the shell of
the tank.
You then multiply this total force by the radius of the tank to get the value of MF which we
use in equation 2?
Also the code states that WL shall be the lesser of 0.90HD or the mentioned above formula
for WL.
Is this an error as if i use 0.90HD i get a figure that is completely out in comparison.
Many Thanks for your help
22 Sep 09
22:04
You are correct in your application. The 0.90HD is in error. I think it is the US-unit
equation. The equation for the amount of liquid resisting uplift is based on the equation
given in App. E for seismic design. You should be able to work out the comparable metric
limitation based on the App. E equations.
Usually the first equation is what determines if it is anchored.
skn4 (Mechanical)
23 Sep 09
6:04
Thanks JStephen,
based on the equations in appendix E i have calculated that for SI units it should be
141HD
Im assuming that the equations in Appendix E do not apply in my case as i am not
designing the tank for seismic conditions and that the formula for WL stated in my original
post is the correct one to use.
Thanks again for your help :)
IFRs (Petroleum)
28 Sep 09
8:21
API is currently revising this section, a sub-committee ballot on the new equations is due
soon.
gwkwong (Civil/Environme)
26 Nov 09
17:16
I just wonder what is means by "band of liquid". To determine the anchorage requirement,
shall we assume that tha tank is empty. Where is this "band" of liquid comes from?
30 Nov 09
1:14
In recent revisions, they added the uplift on the roof, which has a major effect on
overturning. At the same time, they added the effect of the tank contents. I think the idea
is to recognize that the maximum wind plus minimum liquid level are not likely to occur at
the same time. This is similar in idea to the approaches used with maximum venting and
overturning, and in combining impulsive, convective, and vertical seismic acceleration.
API 650 Design Wind Pressure

xema77 (Mechanical)
16 Feb 10
14:47
There appears to be a discrepancy in the design wind pressure for API 650 tanks.
-Section 5.2.1 defines the wind pressure on vertical surfaces to be 0.86(V/190)^2 or
18(V/120)^2 which is used in the wind overturning (Section 5.11) and Appendix F
calculations.
-When calculating the stiffener requirements for wind (Section 5.9.7) and for external
pressure in App V, it indicates that the wind design pressure is 1.48(V/190)^2 or
31(V/120)^2
Can anyone explain why two different wind pressures are used? Thanks.
16 Feb 10
16:55
It looks to me like one factor is the average pressure over the projected shell area and
includes a drag coefficient; the other is the peak pressure.
IFRs (Petroleum)
The 31 psf is the classical stagnation pressure of air hitting a flat plate using the
16 Feb 10
21:26
modification factors shown. I believe that the 18 psf used for wind stability includes an
additional shape factor for cylindrical shells. Using the full stagnation pressure for shell
buckling is reasonable because buckling is a local phenomenon, over a small distance the
shell would feel the full stagnation pressure and the buckling pressure is perpendicular to
the shell. For wind stability, using a shape factor is reasonable because the total
overturning moment from wind is a global net pressure and round surfaces shed some of
the wind. Note also that API uses a different net pressure for the cone roof which is a
different shape.
IFRs (Petroleum)
16 Feb 10
21:33
For what it's worth, AWWA uses similar factors, more explicitly though - 0.60 for cylinders,
1.0 for flat plates and 0.50 for conical. The form of the equation is the same, using
0.00256 (density of air) times wind velocity squared times modification factors
Pontoon Leaks
joetank1 (Mechanical)
5 Nov 09
7:56
Can somebody provide advises on what be the best mitigation process if a tank in service
with an external floating roof and has a leak on the double deck pontoon? The leak has
penetrated the inner or annular pontoon. How reliable are pontoon liners? Would it be able
to float a 82,000 lb. floating roof?
MarikaF (Petroleum)
11 Nov 09
12:20
Fill the pontoons with foam. Depending on the product in the tank that would be a way to
go. Unicoat makes a foam for pontoons.
Bonswa (Mechanical)
12 Nov 09
23:01
foam is great, but the problem with foam is the removal of it when you're ready to make a
permanent repair.
what i've switched to is the "McDonalds balls". they're the plastic hollow balls that you fill
the pontoon with to displace the product with air. They're a quick, cheap solution that is
easily removed and reusable when the tank comes out of service and a permanent repair is
made.
I'll have to look around to find our supplier of these balls.
either solution will be just as effective. the seller to me with the plastic balls was the fact
that i can reuse them as many times as i want.
Tankmanapi2000 (Mechanical)
4 Feb 10
11:08
Joe,
We have successfully installed a closed cell urethane foam in one complete flooded ring in
a double deck roof. The issue with double decks of a CBI design is that when a part floods
the whole thing. Team has successfully done this in service without taking the tank out of
service. Also I use this for fixing leaks on a single deck efr. Crude, sour water, heptane,
hexane,slop.
dennis mccarty api 2000
Nace 806
CIP instructor
Tankmanapi2000 (Mechanical)
4 Feb 10
15:15
Joe
Regarding pontoon liners. I know of one double deck roof that they used bag liners on with
pressure. Roof sunk again
dennis
API 650 Uplift / Overturning and Tank Anchoring

xema77 (Mechanical)
21 Jan 10
16:20
I am looking at the decision tree (Fig F-1) in Appendix F of API 650. The tank internal
pressure is less than the weight of the shell & roof, however when I calculate Pmax it is less
than the design pressure. F.4.2 indicates not to exceed Pmax. What needs to be done, I
assume that anchoring the tank and following F.7 is an acceptable solution? Please advise.
I am also having trouble understanding why Pmax is lower than the design pressure
(resulting in uplift) yet my 5.11 calculation for wind overturning indicates no anchors are
required. Both are based on wind and internal pressure, why the discrepancy?
Thanks
DSB123 (Mechanical)
22 Jan 10
10:52
xema77,
Sounds like you have done the calcs incorrectly!!
xema77 (Mechanical)
22 Jan 10
12:53
No, I don't think so. I was looking for a more constructive response.
I believe that it is because 5.11.2 load case 1 uses 0.6Mw and appendix F does not factor
the wind moment. It is difficult to tell with the factors that API applies to formulas in
Appendix F. Ayone else have any input?
rab1944 (Structural)
22 Jan 10
15:28
It is rare for an Appendix F tank to not be anchored.

Have you checked out Section 5.2.1(k)2: The design uplift presure on the roof (wind plus
internal pressure)need not exceed 1.6 times the design pressure P determined in F.4.1.
Also of interest are the 30 May 09 posts regarding wind overturning stability check and apx
F moment definitions.
Hope this is helpful.
Best regards
23 Jan 10
3:07
In App. F, there is a division into two different categories depending on whether the
pressure exceeds the weight of the shell and roof.
If you're in the first category, you may still need to anchor the tank to avoid wind
overturning, but you don't have to comply with F.7. There may be an Interpretation that
states this. You also have to check pressure based on top angle area, and if that is
inadequate, either increase the area or increase the roof slope.
A couple of addendums back, API revised the wind loading by adding uplift on the
roof. This dramatically increased the calculated wind overturning. At the same time, they
revised the overturning criteria to include part of the tank contents, recognizing that tanks
are not likely to be completely empty, which offset a lot of the increased
moment. However, some of these changes didn't get reconciled between the wind
overturning criteria, the anchorage requirements, the Appendix F requirements, and the
Appendix E requirements. The most recent addendum did have some corrections to the
anchorage force equations, but I think there are still some discrepancies, and you have to
use your judgment to figure which section to use when they don't agree.
23 Jan 10
21:15
xema77 (Mechanical) have you check the following

Please review TID-7024 NUCLEAR REACTORS AND EARTHQUAKES
1) Sloshing Frequency for Fluids in Tanks
2) Wave Motion Periodic Loading on Tanks
3) Slug Loads
5) Seismic/Periodic Time History Loading
6) Falling Fluids
7) Tank Fill Simulations
9) Slug Breaker Design
10) Loads on Flow Obstructions
11) Deceleration of Tank
12) Branch Flow Splitting
13) Flow around Baffles
L S THILL
xema77 (Mechanical)
25 Jan 10
9:40
Thanks for the input
API-650 Tanks - Limitations on non-annular plate

bottom
2 Jun 10
13:03
I need some information on API-650 tank designs with annular rings.

As I understand the rules, API 650 mandates an annular ring when the stress in the bottom
course are above a certain level and higher strength materials are required in the shell.
The Brittish standard (BS 2654) and many others mandate an annular ring when the tank is
over a certain diameter (12.5m for BS 2654)
Is there anything wrong with an API-650 tank that is of large diameter (say 20-25m)that
does not use the higher strength shell materials ?
Stated another way,when writing an API-650 design specification is it a good idea to
mandate both the 12.5 m rule of the Brittish standard and REQUIRE an annular ring
design ?
Thank you for your time
IFRs (Petroleum)
2 Jun 10
14:52
API 650 Apendix M also has annular plate requirements, but I would not say that a 12.5 M
tank needs one (it's a small tank!).
3 Jun 10 0:59
Agreed, a 20-25m tank is NOT a large tank. I am not aware of any reason at all to require
an annular ring on a tank of that size if not required by the standard involved. The vast
majority of tanks in that size range don't have them.
uncletank (Mechanical)
8 Jun 10
23:22
We tend to use thicknened annular rings only when required for high strength steels, for
seismic uplift as per APX E for and APX M when required.
We have used annular rings on smaller tanks i.e 12m in the past where the ring is the
same thickness as the remainder of the floor just because it can be easier to fabricate,
than the joggle detail.
The only reason I could see a tank of 12m diameter requiring an annular ring would be due
to seismic uplift.
API 650 DOUBT: HIDROSTATIC TEST

PINOLERO (Industrial)
1 Feb 11
11:06
Hi Everybody:
Could anyone help me with the following doubt?:
We just finished to build a 5,000m3 API 650 tank. We are planning the hydrostatic test,
however, we are not installed the firefighting pipeline which will be supported on the tank
shell. We neither installed the datum plate at bottom of the tank. Can we do the
hydrostatic test even though we are going to do further welding jobs at the tank shell and
bottom after this test?.
Thank in advance for your help
Best Regards,
Eddycurrentguy (Petroleum)
You COULD (if you wanted to) hydrotest before completion, but you would not be in
1 Feb 11
12:48
compliance with several sections... Not withstanding that, the integrity of the completed
unit would not be demonstrated.
S.4.14.2 Inspection of Welds by Liquid Penetrant Method

The following component welds shall be examined by the liquid penetrant method before
the hydrostatic test of the tank:
a. The shell-to-bottom inside attachment weld.
b. All welds of opening connections in tank shell that are not completely radiographed,
including nozzle and manhole neck welds
and neck-to-flange welds.
c. All welds of attachments to shells, such as stiffeners, compression rings, clips, and other
nonpressure parts for which the thickness
of both parts joined is greater than 19 mm (3/4 in.).
d. All butt-welded joints in tank annular plates on which backing strips are to remain.
1 Feb 11
13:12
Eddy:
Thanks you for your soon response.
The support for the water pipeline will be installed at the exterior of the tank's shell. Do
you think S.4.14.2 C applied in this case considering that the pipeline is not part of the
tank?
What is your opinion if we do the hydrostatic test and then we install a datum plate at the
bottom of the tank and we performed a liquid penetrant test for this welding?
Best Regards,
IFRs (Petroleum)
1 Feb 11
14:13
Eddy - please clarify where API prohibits this. Your reference of S.14.2.1 is for Stainless
tanks - the OP did not say his was stainless.
Kiwi2671 (Structural)
Pinolero,
Hydrotest must be done before external piping is attached.
5.3.5 Testing of the Shell
After the entire tank is completed but before any permanent
external piping is connected to the tank, the shell (except
for the shell of tanks designed in accordance with Appendix
F) shall be tested by one of the following methods:
a. If water is available for testing the shell, the tank shall be
filled with water as follows: (1) to the maximum design liquid
level, H; (2) for a tank with a tight roof, to 50 mm (2 in.)
above the weld connecting the roof plate or compression bar
to the top angle or shell; or (3) to a level lower than that specified
in subitem 1 or 2 when restricted by overflows, an
internal floating roof, or other freeboard by agreement
between the purchaser and the manufacturer. The tank shall
be inspected frequently during the filling operation, and any
welded joints above the test-water level shall be examined in
1 Feb 11
18:46
accordance with item b.

b. If sufficient water to fill the tank is not available, the tank
may be tested by (1) painting all of the joints on the inside
with a highly penetrating oil, such as automobile spring oil,
and carefully examining the outside of the joints for leakage;
The only exemption is if you have a tank manufactured in accordance with Appendix F
Regards,
Kiwi
1 Feb 11
18:51
IFRs (Petroleum)
Kiwi - As I read that section, I think it is intended to address piping that is bolted to tank
flanges that may stress when the tank settles. There is no prohibition against piping that is
simply resting on supports where the supports are attached to the shell as long as the
piping is not connected to piping not on the shell.
Pinolero - please clarify if this is an Appendix S or F tank.
1 Feb 11
20:00
Hi everybody:
The tank is a iron steel tank, so it is not an appendix S tank. The tank is 10 meters high by
25 meter of diameter, therefore I do not believe belong to appendix F (correct me if I am
wrong).
The pipeline to attach on the tanks is outside and will use the tank shell just as support to
later (after the hydraulic test is performed) connect it with the foam chamber of the tank.
My concern is that the pipeline support will be welded to the tank and this (pipeline of 4
inches full of water) could produce stress in the metal sheet of the tank and its welding and
if there is a failure you won't detected since you already performed the hydrostatic test. Do
I have reason to be concerned?
Thank you for your help.
1 Feb 11
21:55
IFRs (Petroleum)
The size of the tank does not determine if it is an Appendix F tank - the internal pressure
does. Does the internal pressure make it an Appendix F tank? With a properly designed
series of supports you should not have any issues with stress. Still, you and the owner
should agree to this.
2 Feb 11 6:51
Thank you IFRs. Yes, the tank is an appendix F tanks.

I am grateful for your help.
Best Regards,
TANKO (Mechanical)
2 Feb 11 8:51
you have not to weld anything on the shell after hydrotest.

2 Feb 11 9:03
Hi Tanko: Thank you for your response. Why do do you say that? This is a external
welding?. Something in the code that prohibits this?
Thank you.
TANKO (Mechanical)
2 Feb 11
10:44
We built many tanks according to API 650 & EN....I don t remeber which part of the
code...but it is not possible to weld a support directly on the shell, bottom (both external
and internal) after hydrotest...You can weld above another additional plate on the shell but
you can not weld directly on the shell otherwise you have to do another time the
hydrotest.
Duwe6 (Industrial)
4 Feb 11 9:44
Tanko has given you the 'elegant' answer. Attache the necessary pipe supports now, and
run the pipe later. If the pipe people cannout give you the support design, apply
reinforcing pads [now] to receive the supports later. Welding on a repad after hydro is
'legal', but welding to the pressure boundary is not.
4 Feb 11 9:54
Thank you Duwe6. Good recommendation.

Best Regards,
Help with API650 - 3.11 - Wind load on tanks

12 Jul 06 9:59
Hi,
I'm calculating a storage tank, of D=13,5m and H=10,85m.
When calculating wind load on tanks (overturning stability), section 3.11, I've
followed all the steps in this section and reached the conclusion of no need for
anchorage, because M<2/3x(WxD/2).
Now, I really don't know (understand) what to do with 3.11.4 that refers to sliding
due to wind, and gives me a "maximum allowable sliding friction of 0,40 multiplied
by the force against the tank bottom".
What am I suppose to due with this factor, where do I apply it? How do I calculate if
I need anchorage because of sliding? Can anyone help me?
12 Jul 06 14:13
Take the total weight of the tank, including the floor and structure, and multiply by
0.4 to find the sliding resistance. Compare to the total lateral wind force.
Addendum 4 to API-650 revises the wind loading considerably by adding a wind
uplift requirement- you need to look into it if this tank is not specified to be built by
Addendum 3.
12 Jul 06 14:45
Thanks! That really helped.

Can you just tell me if I should consider also 2/3.
Like this:
MaxOverturningMomentwithoutAnch.=2/3x((Wtank+Wfloor+Wroof)xD/2)
OverturningMomentfromWindPress.=Wind PressurexDxH/2
Did I understood it right?
12 Jul 06 18:06
Generally the floor would be considered for the sliding resistance, but not for the
overturning. Or at least that's the way I would work it.
Your second formula would be M = pressure x D x H x H/2. But in the new
Addendum 4, you have a term for uplift on the roof as well, and some additional
equations to calculate uplift resistance.
12 Jul 06 21:26
Sorry, but maybe I didn't explained myself very well.

Forget the "Overturning" term I used, I'm only talking about sliding.
The overturning issue it's already taken care of, and I agree with you, I didnt
consider the floor when calculating overturning.
So:
MaxSlidingwithoutAnch.=2/3x((Wtank+Wfloor+Wroof)xD/2)
MomentfromWindPress.=Wind PressurexDxH/2
It's this what you were saying in your first answer?
13 Jul 06 14:06
If you're considering sliding, then it's not a moment. I don't think there's any
requirement to use a 2/3 factor, for that matter.
You'd have maximum sliding force = (Wtank+Wfloor+Wroof) x 0.4
And compare to Wind Pressure x D X H
API 650 Apendix 'F' Design for Tanks with Small

Internal Pressures
19 Jun 02
19:00
In section F4 does the value calculated for Pmax only apply to unanchored tanks whose
internal pressure does not exceed the weight of the roof, shell and attached framing?
If the answer is yes, does it follow that a tank which is anchored to prevent uplift may be
designed to hold internal pressures calculated for P in section F.4.1?
Any information would be appreciated.
20 Jun 02
10:04
Yes.
If anchored, use section F.7 and design the compression ring per F.5.1
Foundation Design Philosophy for Vertical

Vessel / Tower
Picture-1 (Left) - A tall tower vessel resting on skirt and on Foundation.
Picture-2 (Right) - A small vertical vessel resting on legs and on fpundation.
Now you will follow the following steps to start the foundation load calculation and design:
Step-1 : Review of vessel drawing (Vendor Equipment Drawing)
You need to review Vessel drawings from foundation design point of view and check
whether you have all the following information:
Vessel Erection weight
(De1):
Vessel Empty weight
(De2):
Vessel Operating weight
(Do):
Vessel Hydrotest weight
(Dt):
Wind Shear and Moment
Seismic Shear and Moment (if the Project site is at Seismic zone)
Total Height of vessel
Vessel Center of Gravity location for Seismic load calculation and application
Anchor bolt location (Bolt circle Dia) with respect to center of vessel and also bolt
offset with respect to Plant North line.
Anchor bolt supporting detail ( Anchor bolt size and detail of anchor chair)
Base plate detail
Step-2 : Verification of foundation location, elevation and external fittings loads
You need to review Plot plan, Equipment location drawings and 3 -D Models and check whether
you have all the following information:
Verify the area available for foundation.
Verify Foundation location and Elevation
Pipe supports and Nozzle loads on Equipment (Dp)
Location and size of Platforms around the vessel
Locations of underground pipes
Electrical and Instrument duct banks
Locations and extent of adjacent foundations
Verify the location and extent of new/existing foundations not shown in 3D model or
plot plan.
Step-3 : Description of Foundation Loads:
Please follow this section to understand the different loads on foundation:
Vessel Erection weight (De1): The erection weight is the fabricated weight of the vessel, plus
internals, platforms, etc., that are actually erected with the vessel. Data from Equipment
drawing.
Vessel Empty weight (De2): The empty weight is the in-place weight of the completed vessel,
including the fabricated weight of the vessel, plus the weight of internals, piping, insulation, and
platforms, but excluding the weight of fluids or products which will be contained in the vessel during
operation. Data from Equipment drawings.
Vessel Operating weight (Do):
Vessel Empty weight (De2) + Weight of Fluid inside the vessel.
Data from Equipment drawings.
Vessel Hydrotest weight
(Dt):
Vessel Empty weight (De2) + Weight of test water
Pipe supports and Nozzle loads on Equipment (Dp): Please Coordinate with the Pipe Stress
Group for determination of nozzle loads and loads due to pipe supports attached to the vessel.
Wind Shear and Moment: You will find this load data in vendor drawings. However, you have to
calculate this load based on project design basis. During wind load calculation, you need to
consider the pipes and platforms attached with the vessel. Compare both the data (vendor load
data and your calculated data) and apply the critical one for foundation design.
Seismic Shear and Moment (if the Project site is at Seismic zone): You will find this load data in
vendor drawings. However, you have to calculate this load based on project design basis. During
seismic load calculation, you need to consider the pipes and platforms attached with the vessel.
Compare both the data (vendor load data and your calculated data) and apply critical one for
foundation design.
Step-4 : Pedestal Sizing Criteria:

Concrete pedestals supporting vertical vessels shall be sized according to the following criteria:
Face-to-face pedestal size shall be the larger of the following:
(a)
Bolt circle + 175mm
(b)
Bolt circle + 8 x bolt diameters
(c)
Bolt circle + sleeve diameter + 150mm
(d)
Diameter of baseplate + 100mm
(e)
Bolt circle + 2 x (minimum bolt edge distance)
Pedestals having a diameter or least dimension across sides that is equal to or greater than 1.5m
shall be octagonal in shape. All other pedestals shall be square in shape. For ease of forming,
use multiples of 25mm for each octagonal side or side of square.
It is desirable to make the pedestal deep enough to contain the anchor bolts and keep them out of
the mat.
Step-5 : Anchor Bolt Check:
Design of anchor bolts shall be based on the following considerations. Corrosion allowance
should be considered when required by the project design criteria.
Tension Check:
The maximum tension force in the anchor bolts (Tmax) may be calculated according with
following formula:
Tmax = 4*M / (Nb x BCD) - (De1 or De2) / Nb
Where, M = total maximum moment on foundation

BCD = Bolt circle diameter
Nb = no. of anchor bolt
Use De1 or De2 whichever is critical.
The above formula provides a conservative value of Tmax compared to the concrete transformed
section method.
Shear Check:
When anchor bolts are utilized to resist shear, the unit shear per bolt shall be calculated as
follows:
Vmax = V / Nb
where, V = total shear force on anchor bolt.
When oversized anchor bolt holes are provided in the vessel base plates or when anchor bolt
sleeves that are not grout-filled are used, anchor bolts should be designed to resist tension only.
Frictional resistance to shear between the vessel base plate and the concrete or grouted bearing
surface shall be utilized to resist shears induced by wind or by other static loads. Frictional
resistance shall not be employed to resist shear induced by seismic loads. For seismic-induced
shear, adequate mechanical means shall be provided to resist horizontal shear, either by means of
properly detailed anchor bolt / bolt hole arrangements or through a combination of anchor bolts,
shear lugs, or other anchorage devices. The static coefficient of friction between steel and
concrete or between steel and cementitious grout shall be considered as 0.4 or specified in project
design criteria.
Tension Shear Interaction check:
When anchor bolts are subjected to combined shear and tension loads, the design shall be based
on satisfying interaction formula (say Appendix-d of ACI 318).
Please note that anchor bolt edge distance, spacing and load capacity shall be as per project
design criteria.
Step-6 : Load combinations for foundation sizing / Pile loads and Foundation design:
You need to create the load combination per your project design criteria. However, I have created
this load combination based on ACI 318:
Load combination for Foundation sizing and Pile load calculation (un-factored load calculation):
LC1: Do + Dp
LC2: (De1 or De2) + Wind
LC3: De2 + Seismic
LC4: Do + Dp + Wind
LC5: Do + Dp + Seismic
LC6: Dt + 025*Wind
Load combination for Pedestal and Foundation design (factored load calculation):
LC7: 1.4*(Do + Dp)
LC8: 0.75 [1.4 De2 (or 1.4 De1)] 1.6 Wind
LC9: 1.2 De2 +1.0 E
LC10: 0.75 (1.4 Do + 1.4 Dp) 1.6 Wind
LC11: 1.2 (Do + Dp) 1.0 E
LC12: 0.75 (1.4 Dt) 1.6 (0.25 W)
The weight of the foundation and of the soil on top of the foundation shall be included as dead
load in all of these load combinations.
Now from above steps, you have learnt the following:
Different types of loads on foundation
Different criterias for the pedestal sizing
Maximum tension and shear force on each anchor bolt
A sample load combinations.
To complete the foundation design, your work will be to create following calculation sheets:
o
A calculation sheet for anchor bolt embedment length check (ex: ACI 318
appendix-D).
A calculation sheet for foundation sizing (considering soil bearing pressure,

Sliding, Buoyancy and overturning) or pile load (tension, compression and shear
on each pile) calculation and check with soil consultant for acceptable values.
A calculation sheet for foundation and pedestal reinforcement calculation per

your project design criteria.
For typical Platform and foundation for a Vertical Vessel / Tower click
here
Discussions:
Question from visitor: What is the reference of anchor bolt tension calculation
formula?
Answer from Subhro: Refer "ASCE task committee on anchor bolt design" clause
#3.5.1.1 - vessel anchor bolt design.
Question from visitor: How do I calculate the wind load on vertical vessel?
Answer from Subhro: Refer "Wind load and anchor bolts design for petrochemical
facility by ASCE"
I hope this page will be very helpful to you to understand the basic foundation loads of a Vertical
Vessel / Tower.
Please donate generously for more development of this site:
______________________________________
PV ELITE ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN FOR VERTICAL VESSEL
roca (Mechanical)
15 Sep 10 2:04
Question:
Attached is a clip (apologies for the quality) from a PV Elite calculation for a vertical
skirt supported vessel anchor bolt design which I have been checking. All units are
in N (Newtons) and mm.
The formula for the anchor bolt load per bolt is: = (4*M/DC - W) / RN
Where:
M = moment at base Nmm
DC = Anchor Bolt Circle Diameter
W = Vessel weight
RN = number of anchor bolts
In the PV Elite calculation the vessel weight is shown as 49616.1N, yet in the
anchor bolt calculation the weight is shown as 12404N
e.g. the weight has been divided by a factor of 4 in the calculation.
Why is this as this is not correct in my opinion or am I missing something........??
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=af3e0713-f96d-4b5a-88716a
PreVes (Mechanical)
15 Sep 10 8:52
Roca,
You should send it to the Tech Support at COADE. I can barely see your image so it
doesn't help.
roca (Mechanical)
15 Sep 10 9:06
will add a better clip tomorrow.

However the question is still the same as above, why is the weight divided by 4?
I can't contact PVElite as we do not have the software where I work and this is a
supplier / manufacturer calculation
Aconnell (Aerospace)
15 Sep 10 11:23
Hi Roca,
Have a look in the Pressure Vessel Design Manual by Henry Bednar Page 82 (my
addition). The four comes from the linear section modulus of the bolt circle which
is part of the derivation. If you work alot with pressure vessels I suggest this book,
it is an very good reference.
Regards,
Alex C
roca (Mechanical)
15 Sep 10 20:47
Hi Aconnell
I have Bednar 2nd Edition (I believe that there is no higher version).
On page 93 the required anchor bolt area = Ab = ((4M/d)-W) / NSa
The weight is not divided by 4.
I have attached a better copy of the calculation
Moss 3rd Edition, page 201 also uses the above formula (albeit in imperial units),
but it is the same.
There must be simple answer to this that I am missing.....
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=854b0035-8706-4fef-980557
16 Sep 10 6:32
roca,
in the PV Elite, the calculation window of the number of bolts resisting the
overturning moment is half of the total bolts, ie 4 only bolts (this is a simplistic and
conservative assumption made by PV Elite). The same assumption is applied for the
bolts resisting the overturning moment on the saddles calculated per PV Elite 2008
edition. I suspect that is the case, but I would ask Mandeep Singh in the COADE
forum to confirm the above.
I could run the calculation for you and check on this, let me know if you need my
help.
Cheers,
gr2vessels
roca (Mechanical)
16 Sep 10 19:30
Thanks gr2vessels - at least someone reads / knows the program rather than just
inputting and not looking att he end result.
The reason I found this is that I am checking an existing vertical vessel design in
which the top nozzle loads have been increased. The skirt anchor bolts are already
at their limit (design wise) and I couldn't work out why the weight had been divided
by 4.
This is very conservative on an already simple anchor bolt design.
Do you know if COMPRESS takes the same approach?
Ta
Mandeep1 (Mechanical)
16 Sep 10 23:01
Roca,
I do not get this, see below,
Dead Weight of Vessel
DW
40849.7 N
Operating Weight of Vessel
ROW
40849.7 N
Earthquake Moment on Basering
EQMOM
60532132.0 N-mm
Wind Moment on Basering
WIMOM
34932092.0 N-mm
Percent Bolt Preload
ppl
100.0
Use AISC A5.2 Increase in Fc and Bolt Stress
Use Allowable Weld Stress per AISC J2.5
Factor for Increase of Allowables
Fact
No
No
1.0000
Results for Basering Analysis : Analyze Option

Basering Thickness Calculation method used : Simplified (Steel on Steel)
Calculation of Load per Bolt [W/Bolt], Earthquake + Operating Condition:
W = ROW - Yforce (from gy Acceleration or user force), M = EQMOM
= (( 4 * M/DC ) - W ) / RN per Jawad & Farr, Eq. 12.3
= (( 4 * 60532132 / 2590.800 ) - 40849 ) / 8
= 6571.1821 N
Check if the user specified a +gy acceleration. In PV Elite +ve gy can act against
the weight of the vessel.
Whoever has the PV Elite input file can send that our technical support. We can
review it and let you know.
Seismic Provision of API 650 11th Edition

6
Seismic provision is rewrited in API 650 11th Edition. Until 11th edition, the seismic provision
of API 650 was based on Uniform Building Code (UBC). In 11th edition, API changed their
mind accordign to American Society of Civil Engineer (ASCE). New seismic provision is based
on Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASEC 7-05).
This was the big change! Because all of calcutaions was changed. But, I think the most important
cahnges that data inputs were changed. All our customers are still get their seismic information
us as per UBC-97 data. Unfortunately, ASCE 7-05 inputs are different than UBC. What shall we
do? We must convert these UBC input datas to ASCE data. Here is the solution steps:
1. Calculate fundamental vibration figure of storage tank considering roof, roof
structures, appertunances etc.
2. Ca, Cv, Nv figures read form tables 16-Q, 16-R and 16-T of UBC-97
accordingly.
3. Calculate Sp figure using with Eq.30-4, Eq.30-5, Eq.34-2, Eq.34-3 of UBC-97.
4. Select Sp figure.
After that we use Sp figure in seismic provision of API-650. This post is an idea that how you
can convert UBC seismic data to ASCE. I hope it is usefull for you.

API Tank Study

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

API Tank Study

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

EngineeringManger

Trust this is of value - Allen Botha (713) 910 3773

Compression ring of api 620

Api 650 tank for negative pressure

Team Members & Steve Braune

From API 650

Api 620 /650 vapour space

Api 650 manhole restriction?

Is there a minimum size manhole for API-650?

API-620 requires a min of two 20" manholes - correct?

Api 650 min temp?

Is there a minimum temp restriction with API-650?

Api 620 pressure limit flat bottom?

Is there some general criteria that could be used/shared here ?

Please see my answer to your identical question posted in another forum.

Api 620 ss material?

Api 650 dome roof allowed?

Is a domed roof allowed with API-650?

Yes, dome roofs are permitted for API-650 tanks.

________________________________________________________-Api 650 roof design?

How to check the failure vacuum pressure of api tank

See API-620, 10th ed. paragraph 5.10.5.2

Api 650 flat bottom

Api 520 allowable over pressure?

Does anyone have any info. on the following:

not be suitable for all equipment.

Well, that's a relief! (pun intended)

Legs on api 650 tank?

Api 620 knuckle radius

Api 650 domed roof allowed?

Yes, dome roofs are permitted for API-650 tanks.

API 2000 - API 650 Fire Venting

Joint efficiency & Radiography - API 650

API 650 Tanks-Corrosion of Annular Plate

12'-0" diameter 400 BBL Storage Tank set @ 5psi

API 650 - Steel Tank Roof Deflection

Design thickness as minimum plate thickness

Good Morning All:

the computed design thickness or mimimum permitted thickness.

Good Morning jlcochran1:

Thanks again. You have been a great help.

ETank2000 can be found at www.etank.com

Api 650 standard for diesel fuel

API 650-Distance from bottom plate to shell welds

API 650 Overturning Toe Pressure

What is the approach/equation to calculate the overturning toe pressure on a concrete

Tank Pate thickness__ bottom

I am sorry, i don't understand what you just said.

This is kind of a wacky tank.....isn't it ??

external floating roof API650

Calculating MAWP of API 650 Fixed Roof Tank

1. Calculate the total weight of the shell excl roof plates

wind girders for internal floating roof tanks

Yip API 653 is the way to go! Nice one Steve...

What other codes dictates conical bottom tank designs?

Optivessel will also have facilities to do the calcs Jeffcoat mentioned.

Calculating stresses in API 650 tank flled past

Depending on tank size and details...

and there is no easy solution to address this problem instrumentation-wise.

Sorry, I can't help with the stress calcs.

tank roof uplift

If designing a tank to Appendix F (Small Internal Pressures), shouldn't uplift be considered

Steve - Are there more changes to 650 beyond Addendum 4?

If this addendum is correct and I hope not (entirely)