Contact US

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!

*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

Liner reliability for large API 653 storage tanks?

Liner reliability for large API 653 storage tanks?

Liner reliability for large API 653 storage tanks?

We utilize maybe 5 1M-3M tanks in ammonium sulfate salt service and it feels like every year we’re having a liner fail on us. Had one liner repaired a year ago and during normal operating conditions it failed again. These are considerable repairs each time. They are 40-45 mil polypropylene liners for reference on carbon steel shells with a fiber geo between them.

Beyond the obviously more expensive option of an enormous tank farm that could support 3M tanks, are there any alternatives or retrofits we should be evaluating as we take these systems down?

RE: Liner reliability for large API 653 storage tanks?

Quote (YungPlantEng)

1M-3M tanks
What does it stand for?

Ammonium sulfate is not extremely corrosive. Why these tanks need a PP liner? Which standard was implemented for lining? Please describe in details equipment and liquid.

RE: Liner reliability for large API 653 storage tanks?

The tank uses a soft PP bladder to act as primary containment with a CS shell for secondary. This is a low cost installation as opposed to other methods of containment where the tank sits in a concrete dike. I'm pretty sure secondary containment is a requirement for permitting purposes in our state. The liner drapes in from the top.

There is a fiber geo that protects the liner from any rust spots on the tank. This creates the potential for condensate to collect in between the tank wall (between liner & shell) that saturate the geo and require periodic pump-out.

RE: Liner reliability for large API 653 storage tanks?


You need to describe these tanks better.

API 653 is for inspection and repair of API 650 tanks.

"This standard covers carbon and low alloy steel tanks
built to API Standard 650 and its predecessor API 12C. This
standard provides minimum requirements for maintaining the
integrity of welded or riveted, nonrefrigerated, atmospheric
pressure, aboveground storage tanks after they have been
placed in service. It covers the maintenance inspection,
repair, alteration, relocation, and reconstruction of such tanks. "

Therefore there is no such thing as an API 653 tank.

You're going to need top provide some drawings, sketches or photos so we understand what you mean.

You haven't answered the question about what 1M to 3M means. 1 million somethings? Gallons, barrels, litres, cubic metres, ????

Lined ponds fail frequently , especially at corners or where the liner becomes loose or folded as it is exposed to the sun.

90% of the issues lie in the installation of these liners and if you are already calling them a "low cost solution", my guess is that you take the lowest quote for the installation. This, as you can see, is a false economy.

I also struggle to see how this is classified as "double containment". The whole thing sounds very like a swerve around the regulations to me.

DO you store this as a liquid of granules?

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

RE: Liner reliability for large API 653 storage tanks?


This gives a good explanation of the tank. My apologies for mis-speaking yes it is an API 650 tank that’s inspected to API 653. The tanks are in an ammonium thiosulfate solution - not granules.

I intended gallons my apologies there. These sorts of tanks are common in liquid non-combustible fertilizer service and are traditionally a low cost option for coops and farming collectives. From a design standpoint they are pretty robust for preventing any loss of containment issues assuming leak testing is done regularly.

Unfortunately I’m not in a position to impact future installs of these tanks. If you’re not familiar with the tank design and your feedback is to go with a better design then I guess we’re in the same boat!

Appreciate the response regardless.

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! Already a Member? Login


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