×
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 12th - F.5 - Required Compression Area at the Roof-to-Shell Junction

API 650 12th - F.5 - Required Compression Area at the Roof-to-Shell Junction

API 650 12th - F.5 - Required Compression Area at the Roof-to-Shell Junction

(OP)
Hi everyone,
regarding Appendix F, F.5.1 "Required Compression Area at the Roof-to-Shell Junction", I'd like to clarify what DLR does it mean.
As per code description, it should be the "nominal weight of roof plate plus any attached structural", please find below my doubts:
- corroded weight?
- in case of supported roof, the structure weight (usually not welded to the roof plates) should be considered or not?

Thank you.

RE: API 650 12th - F.5 - Required Compression Area at the Roof-to-Shell Junction

My interpretation:
"nominal" means as-built, not corroded.
"attached structural" means rafters that are under the roof plate and welded to it, or rafters that are on top of the roof plates. Standard structural that is not attached to the roof plate would not be considered.

RE: API 650 12th - F.5 - Required Compression Area at the Roof-to-Shell Junction

(OP)
I agree with your literal interpretation of "nominal weight", but I'm afraid that it is not a conservative approach.

RE: API 650 12th - F.5 - Required Compression Area at the Roof-to-Shell Junction

You asked what it means, not what it ought to say. Different standards approach this in different ways. There are other ways in which API is unconservative as well, but certainly nothing to prevent you from designing more conservatively if you so elect.

I think API has flipflopped on some of this. If the corrosion in your case is normally uniform corrosion over the entire surface, then you would more appropriately consider the corroded weight. If corrosion is somewhat localized, then it would make sense to neglect the loss of weight in the structure. And in some cases, the corroded weight could actually increase- the iron oxide is heavier than the iron, so until they get separated, the tank is getting heavier.

RE: API 650 12th - F.5 - Required Compression Area at the Roof-to-Shell Junction

IMO, the intent of the standard was to use the weight of the uncorroded roof, as opposed to the corroded roof with less weight, to determine the minimum, safe required area of compression. I don't believe the code was interested in evaluating the specific gravity of the rust and speculate on the amount of rust on the roof.
I recommend sticking to JStephens interpretation as being the conservative approach.
Cheers,
gr2vessels

RE: API 650 12th - F.5 - Required Compression Area at the Roof-to-Shell Junction

(OP)
I got your point, thank you for your support!

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