Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

Update API 650 Appendix E

Seismic Design of Liquid Storage Tanks


September 2006
Presented by:

John M. Lieb PE Tank Industry Consultants


Lieb@tankindustry.com

Why has Appendix E changed?

Update API 650 to State of the Art Practice Make API 650 More Consistent with Building
Codes and Standards

ASCE 7 International Building Code (IBC) National Earthquake Hazard Reductions Program
(NEHRP)

Replace Seismic ZoneConcept with More


Accurate Approach
Tank Industry Consultants

How has Appendix E changed?

Incorporated newer definitions of ground motion in the


US, Added a procedure to address regions outside the US, Expanded and generalized the equations to improve programming applications and reduce reliance on plots, Added hydrodynamic hoop stresses and vertical earthquake, Included information and equations previously found only in outside reference materials, Revised the combination of impulsive and convective forces to use the SRSS method instead of direct sum method.
Tank Industry Consultants

How has Appendix E changed?

Introduced concept of an anchorage ratio, J, for


clarity,
J = M rw 1 . 54 ? D ( wt (1 0 . 4 Av ) + w a
2

Permit the use of soil structure interaction for


mechanically-anchored tanks, Added detailing requirements for freeboard, pipe flexibility, and other components, Improved maintainability,

Added Commentary with example problems.


Tank Industry Consultants

How Will New Appendix E Affect Tank Design?

Parametric study concluded:


For overall tank population not much difference from
previous appendix. For some areas, e.g., Houston, TX, new rules are more stringent For other areas, e.g. Some parts of California, new rules are stringent less .

Tank Industry Consultants

When was Appendix E Published?


API 650 included the revised Appendix in the 10th Edition, Addendum 4. The Commentary to Appendix E will be incorporated in the 11th Edition.

Tank Industry Consultants

Appendix E Outline
Design Spectral Accelerations (defining the required ground motions) Seismic Design Factors (I and Rw to define the design level forces) Design (base shear, impulsive and convective loads, vertical effects, over-turning moment, SSI, allowable stresses) Detailing Requirements (piping, anchorage, freeboard, connections, sliding)

Tank Industry Consultants

Ground Motion- ASCE 7 Method


Response spectra, mapped or defined by regulations
Spectral Response Acceleration, Sa (g)
S DS 1

S ac =

1.5S D1 T S D1 T
S ac = 6S D1 T2

Recurrence interval

S ai =
S D1

Soil Effects

00

TS

1.0 1

4.0 4

Period, T (sec)

Tank Industry Consultants

Ground Motion for Regions Outside USA


Peak Ground Acceleration, Sp
Ss = 2.5 Sp S1=1.25 Sp

Tank Industry Consultants

Ground Motion- Site Specific


Site-specific Response Spectra
Probabilistic, Deterministic 5%, 0.5% Includes Soil Effects Recurrence Interval

Tank Industry Consultants

Generalized Equations
Examples,
impulsive coefficient
I I = 2.5QFa S 0 Ai = S DS R R w w

ringwall moment
M rw =

[Ai (Wi X i + Ws X s + Wr X r )]2 + [Ac (Wc X c )]2

Tank Industry Consultants

What Next? s
API 650
Publish Commentary to Appendix E in 11 th Edition

API 620
Rewrite Appendix L, Address: Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE)

Tank Industry Consultants

Update Floating Roof Stability

Joint API/PAJ* Research Project


Information in this portion of the presentation was provided by Takayasu Tahara, Dr. Eng. Of PAJ and Phil Myers, P.E., of Chevron.
*Petroleum Association of Japan

Floating Roof Stability


This portion of the presentation addresses the joint API/PAJ research project to develop seismic design provisions for floating roofs. The project is intended to do the technical work needed to understand the behavior of floating roofs under loading conditions including sloshing waves. Why? Many floating roofs exist which do not meet the broad API 650 strength requirements outlined in API 650 Appendices C and H. Currently the purchaser relies on the manufacturer to provide a floating roof that has sufficient strength to meet the standards. Many examples and case histories show that this is not the case. By performing this work not only will the provisions of API 650 provide the industry with a tool to easily assess the strength of floating roofs to perform as intended but the work will also provide the basis for designs needed in regions and areas subject to seismic activity.

Is Your Facility Vulnerable?

REGIONS WHERE RESEARCH WORK WILL HAVE HIGHEST IMPACT

Floating Roof Critical to Tank Safety


Controls Product Vaporization Limits Fire Risk to Rim Fires Reduces Fire Protection Needs (Foam, etc) to Rim Area (not Tank Area) Prevents Escalation to Fully Involved Tank and Terminal Fires Single Most Important Fire and Safety Defense of All Tank Components

Floating Roof Vulnerabilities


Floating Roofs Are Vulnerable to:
Sinking Rain (In Houston, Hurricane Allison Caused Over 100 Floating Roofs to Sink) Gas (as From Producing or Pipeline Operations) Corrosion API 650 has Performance Based Rules Which Have Proven to be Inadequate

Is API 650 Adequate?


Rules Require 2 Flooded Compartments Plus Center Deck and, 10 Inches of Rainfall in 24 Hour Period Very Few Know How to Design to Meet the Structural Requirements Industry Depends on Tank and Roof Manufacturers for Safe Designs Many Lawsuits Have Resulted From Floating Roofs Sinking Industry Needs to Have Simple Rules, Tables and Formulas that Ensure the Floating Roof is Strong Enough for Loading Conditions

Seismic Background
Seismic Technology Changed So Codes Changed API 650 Appendix E Revised Accordingly But Job is Not Complete Seismic Committee Intended to Address Tank Shell and Bottom First (Appendix E Does This) Then Floating Roof Stability (This is Current Proposal)

Common Seismic Failure Modes


Tearing Piping Shell Elephant Foot s Bottom Separates From Shell Floating Roof Collapse/Sinking First 3 covered by new Appendix E Floating Roof (Yet to Complete)

10

Damage Observed in a Recent Major Refinery Earthquake Due to Tank Sloshing Waves

Seismic waves cause floating roof to lose buoyancy

Seismic waves cause failure deck and floating roof sinking This can result in full surface fire and tank burn-down

Ismit, Turkey 1998

11

Ismit, Turkey 1998

Is Floating Roof Damage From a Sloshing Wave a Real Risk?


Hokkaido, Japan
4 Fully Involved Tank Fires 2 Fully Involved Due to Floating Roof Collapse from Sloshing Waves 50% Due to Sloshing Wave

Ismit, Turkey
23 Major Tank Fires 17 Due to Sloshing Waves >50% Due to Sloshing Wave

Anchorage, Alaska
Commingled Data But Many Floating Roofs Collapsed

API AST Leadership Committee Thinks Seismic Work Not Complete Seismic Sloshing is Important and Should be Completed

12

Business Case
At Least 25 Floating Roofs per Year Sinking in US Alone About are Due to Corrosion; Other Half Due to Water or Gas Of the Half, About 1/3 are Due to Inadequate Design This is About 4 per Year Sinking Due to Inadequate Structural Stability Floating Roof Sinkings Can be Reduced or Prevented if API Companies Have Simple Means to Evaluate Floating Roof Stability Proposed Work Will Result in This Deliverable The Lower Bound Estimate for the Ismit and Hokkaido Incidents are $100 million At least of the Floating Roofs Causing Fires Would Not Have Occurred Cost Savings From These Standards Would be Roughly $30 million

Final Statement of Benefit To Cost


Benefits Project Has High Value in Seismically Active Areas Major Oil Companies Support this Activity Work Will Result in Adequate Floating Roofs for Seismic Areas Will Result in General Understanding of Floating Roofs for Other Load Conditions (Gas, Rainwater, etc) Project is Leveraged Costs $25,000 in 2007

13

Thank You !

Questions ?

14

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen