×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

API-650, Appendix E, Equation E-20

API-650, Appendix E, Equation E-20

API-650, Appendix E, Equation E-20

(OP)
It appears to me that equation E-20 is missing a reduction factor.  The resultant calculation for this center of mass is much greater in all the trials that I have ran than that calculated in equation E-19.  The value has often came out to be larger than the tank shell height.  Under the right parameters, just a slight increase shell height could bump you to a D/H<1.33 which, at least in my calcs, almost doubles the slab moment.  Has anyone else had similar findings or have any thoughts on the validity of this? Thanks in advance.

RE: API-650, Appendix E, Equation E-20

It may be a typo.

Generally, with a large diameter low tank, it should give you a moment much larger than the shell moment.  And it could give you an effective height higher than the shell.  The vertical centroid of the forces acting on the shell has got to always be less than the shell height.  But this is the moment on shell plus moment on bottom, divided by effective mass acting on the shell.  That doesn't imply there's really a force up there acting, just a way to calculate the moment.

RE: API-650, Appendix E, Equation E-20

(OP)
I have learned since posting my question that there in fact is a typo in equation E-20.  The equation should read:

  Xis=[0.500 + 0.060(D/H)]H

This will provide a moment much more reasonable and closer to the ringwall moment.  

RE: API-650, Appendix E, Equation E-20

TankDude,

Can you say where you obtained this correction?

Richard Ay
COADE, Inc.

RE: API-650, Appendix E, Equation E-20

(OP)
Sorry, I can't divulge the exact source.  I can tell you that it came from someone who sits on the API-650 committee and is a credible source.  I think that if you play with the numbers you will see that it's valid.

RE: API-650, Appendix E, Equation E-20

I think there are enough other errors to make one queasy about using Appendix E until API issues an errata.

RE: API-650, Appendix E, Equation E-20

Check the new AWWA D100-05, which includes similar equations.  This particular one should also be available from the old TID-7024 document.

RE: API-650, Appendix E, Equation E-20

There are also errors in Equations E-18 and E21.

For Eq. E-18 the placement of parentheses includes the "-1" term as part of the argument of the cosh function.  This is not consistent with other published sources (AWWA D100-05, Philip Myers' book "Aboveground Storage Tanks", and the original paper by Wozniak and Mitchell).  The numerator should read:

cosh(3.67H/D) - 1

The same is true for the "-1.937" term in Eq. 21.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources