sajk14
Mechanical
- Sep 2, 2009
- 56
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
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