Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Member Login

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • 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!

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

LINK TO THIS FORUM!

Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

Partner With Us!

"Best Of Breed" Forums Add Stickiness To Your Site
Partner Button
(Download This Button Today!)

Feedback

"...You have made an incredible site which is truly a great help to me in solving problems. A tip of my hat to you!..."

Geography

Where in the world do Eng-Tips members come from?
zjliang (Mechanical)
1 Aug 12 13:35
Recently when sizing a storage tank, found that the required thickness will be 51mm (2"), over the limit 45mm (1-3/4") thick as set in section 4.2.1.4 of API 650. The question is whether the maximum plate thickness 45mm is mandatory? If not, what additional requirements? If so, what is the rationale behind this limit?

Thanks guys in advance.
IFRs (Petroleum)
2 Aug 12 7:42
Your only choice is to use higher strength steel to stay within API 650.
zjliang (Mechanical)
2 Aug 12 13:38
Considering the low design metal temperature and cost, CSA G40.21 Grade 350 WT has been specified. ALso the allowable stress has been elevated according to section 5.6.2.1 and 5.6.2.2. That is why i am questioning the limit ...

Thanks.
IFRs (Petroleum)
2 Aug 12 21:52
This must be a huge tank - Appendix K illustrates tanks up to 1,321,200 barrels capacity under 1.75 inch thick. What are your diameter and height?
zjliang (Mechanical)
3 Aug 12 12:56
Yes, it is. For the given pump suction head and working capacity, the tank has been sized to 34m Dia X 55m H, with the high S.G and corrosion allowance, the wall thickness at the bottom course would be 1.96".

Considering the small ratio of D/H, the variable-Design-Point method would not give a better result but a little bit thicker. However, probably it would help refine the upper courses a little bit.
Helpful Member!(2)  JStephen (Mechanical)
5 Aug 12 10:24
With requirements like that, one option would be to build two tanks side-by-side, and operate them in parallel. This might actually be cheaper than building the single larger tank.

Where shell limitations come in, the more common scenario is just building a huge tank, not a tall tank. The companies that have the capability to do this are also the companies that have been involved in writing the standards and have the engineering/vessel/welding background to know whether they can safely exceed the code thicknesses.

With pressure vessels, if you get above certain limits, stress-relief of welds is required, and this is impractical with large tanks.

Foundations can become a challenge with a tank of the dimensions you propose, also.
zjliang (Mechanical)
7 Aug 12 13:07
Thanks guys.

Yes, two tanks might be a better option under the limit. However, my point here is about the limit set in the API 650, is it a strength issue or toughness concern? Any insights?

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!

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close