The integrity of tanks needs to be well managed because they can contain a large inventory of hazardous
materials and because of the high costs such as cleaning and waste disposal prior to inspection and maintenance.
materials and because of the high costs such as cleaning and waste disposal prior to inspection and maintenance.
The damage mechanisms associated with tanks can be complex and varied. Mechanisms include underfloor
corrosion (where cathodic protection and drainage issues are important), internal corrosion (where the contents
of the tank, the presence of species such as sulphate reducing bacteria and temperature control the corrosion
rates) and non-corrosion related mechanisms such as differential settlement.
corrosion (where cathodic protection and drainage issues are important), internal corrosion (where the contents
of the tank, the presence of species such as sulphate reducing bacteria and temperature control the corrosion
rates) and non-corrosion related mechanisms such as differential settlement.
When risk is defined as
the product of likelihood
and consequence, it is
apparent that tanks deserve
high profile in a risk
directed inspection
program. It is maintained in
the paper that it is possible
to develop inspection
scopes directed on the
basis of risk. Such an
approach permits the use of
resources to be optimised
while the overall costs of
maintenance are minimised.
Inspection and turnaround
costs may be minimised and
the risk of business and
safety impacts reduced to
an acceptable level whilst
meeting statutory
occupational health, safety
and environmental
requirements.
the product of likelihood
and consequence, it is
apparent that tanks deserve
high profile in a risk
directed inspection
program. It is maintained in
the paper that it is possible
to develop inspection
scopes directed on the
basis of risk. Such an
approach permits the use of
resources to be optimised
while the overall costs of
maintenance are minimised.
Inspection and turnaround
costs may be minimised and
the risk of business and
safety impacts reduced to
an acceptable level whilst
meeting statutory
occupational health, safety
and environmental
requirements.
Tanks have been around since the
beginning of hydrocarbon
production. However, relative to
pressure equipment, limited
information is available for tank
integrity management. Tanks vary
considerably in size , to American
Petroleum Institute (API) 620 and
650 tanks where the size may be
tens of millions of litres. Perhaps the
perception that tanks are simple,
ambient pressure equipment leads to
them receiving less attention in the
technical literature. Additionally, the
generally high reliability and
perception of tanks as infrastructure
rather than plant has meant that
tank maintenance approaches have
tended to be reactive. Whatever the
case, review of tank design and
operating experience shows that
tank issues can be complex and
responses to leaks have been costly
and anything but simple.
beginning of hydrocarbon
production. However, relative to
pressure equipment, limited
information is available for tank
integrity management. Tanks vary
considerably in size , to American
Petroleum Institute (API) 620 and
650 tanks where the size may be
tens of millions of litres. Perhaps the
perception that tanks are simple,
ambient pressure equipment leads to
them receiving less attention in the
technical literature. Additionally, the
generally high reliability and
perception of tanks as infrastructure
rather than plant has meant that
tank maintenance approaches have
tended to be reactive. Whatever the
case, review of tank design and
operating experience shows that
tank issues can be complex and
responses to leaks have been costly
and anything but simple.
The failure of a tank can have several undesirable effects such as endangering personnel, affecting the environment and
interrupting the operator's business. In a 1988 API worldwide survey, tank ruptures accounted for 5 % of the 132 releases that
occurred worldwide between 1970 and 1988 but accounted for almost 19 % of the released material. An example of a failure with
dramatic results was in January 1988 in Pennsylvania, where 500,000 gallons of fuel flowed from an above ground tank into the
Monogahela River, the major source of water for many local towns. The cost of clean up, damage to the environment and adverse
publicity associated with this and other releases spawned present tank regulations and the development of API 653.
interrupting the operator's business. In a 1988 API worldwide survey, tank ruptures accounted for 5 % of the 132 releases that
occurred worldwide between 1970 and 1988 but accounted for almost 19 % of the released material. An example of a failure with
dramatic results was in January 1988 in Pennsylvania, where 500,000 gallons of fuel flowed from an above ground tank into the
Monogahela River, the major source of water for many local towns. The cost of clean up, damage to the environment and adverse
publicity associated with this and other releases spawned present tank regulations and the development of API 653.
Whether published standards for tank integrity are available or not, it is apparent that well planned preventive, rather than
reactive, measures should be taken in tank maintenance and reliability. It is interesting to note that in the USA, tank regulations
and rules generally focus on mitigative rather than preventive aspects; for example leaks and spills are mitigated by secondary
containment rather than prevented by design and inspection. The importance of inspection and condition monitoring in avoiding
failures, maintaining safety and optimising availability is unquestionable. However, in a competitive business environment, down
time for inspection requires considerable justification.
reactive, measures should be taken in tank maintenance and reliability. It is interesting to note that in the USA, tank regulations
and rules generally focus on mitigative rather than preventive aspects; for example leaks and spills are mitigated by secondary
containment rather than prevented by design and inspection. The importance of inspection and condition monitoring in avoiding
failures, maintaining safety and optimising availability is unquestionable. However, in a competitive business environment, down
time for inspection requires considerable justification.
Facilities with tanks often present additional risks beyond site risks such as potential injury to site personnel, damage to
equipment and lost business. Tanks are often located in areas of environmental value or, because of the encroachment of
suburbia, are close to the community. Furthermore, incidents may create unfavourable publicity through media coverage.
Consideration of the cost of litigation and fines from accidental releases alone can warrant setting up an inspection program.
Companies therefore require a consistent approach for assessing tank integrity and maintaining compliance with industry
standards and regulatory, that is, community requirements. Such an approach must show that tanks are not leaking and will not
leak before next inspection reduce the potential for releases maintain tanks in safe operating condition, and make repairs and
determine if and when replacement is necessary.
equipment and lost business. Tanks are often located in areas of environmental value or, because of the encroachment of
suburbia, are close to the community. Furthermore, incidents may create unfavourable publicity through media coverage.
Consideration of the cost of litigation and fines from accidental releases alone can warrant setting up an inspection program.
Companies therefore require a consistent approach for assessing tank integrity and maintaining compliance with industry
standards and regulatory, that is, community requirements. Such an approach must show that tanks are not leaking and will not
leak before next inspection reduce the potential for releases maintain tanks in safe operating condition, and make repairs and
determine if and when replacement is necessary.
The standards and recommended practices produced by the American Petroleum Institute (API) are recognised as world class.
Tank selection has historically been a complex process of optimising an array of requirements such as design, capacity and cost.
Other factors include corrosion prevention systems and environmental regulations. In planning to design and construct new
tankage, there are ample standards geared to provide agreement on design and fabrication between the supplier and purchaser.
Such standards ensure that the tank will not fail when put into service and were not intended to deal with long term maintenance
and inspection. There are a number of API standards and recommended practices which provide guidelines on design,
fabrication, operation, cleaning, inspection and repair of tanks and which can be used to develop tank integrity programs and
procedures. Selected information is contained in Appendix 1. The most important guide on in-service integrity is API 653.
Tank selection has historically been a complex process of optimising an array of requirements such as design, capacity and cost.
Other factors include corrosion prevention systems and environmental regulations. In planning to design and construct new
tankage, there are ample standards geared to provide agreement on design and fabrication between the supplier and purchaser.
Such standards ensure that the tank will not fail when put into service and were not intended to deal with long term maintenance
and inspection. There are a number of API standards and recommended practices which provide guidelines on design,
fabrication, operation, cleaning, inspection and repair of tanks and which can be used to develop tank integrity programs and
procedures. Selected information is contained in Appendix 1. The most important guide on in-service integrity is API 653.
API 653 departs from most inspection specifications in that it requires an engineering analysis of the inspection data.
Thickness measurements are evaluated to ensure that the tank is structurally sound, within allowable stresses for the required
design conditions and will not leak before the next inspection. Confirming that a tank will not leak goes beyond ensuring that it
will not fail catastrophically, since even a small leak is unacceptable. API 653 emphasises the need for engineering experience
when evaluating a tank's suitability for service. It requires that evaluation be conducted by organisations that maintain or have
access to engineering and inspection personnel who are technically trained and experienced in tank issues.
Thickness measurements are evaluated to ensure that the tank is structurally sound, within allowable stresses for the required
design conditions and will not leak before the next inspection. Confirming that a tank will not leak goes beyond ensuring that it
will not fail catastrophically, since even a small leak is unacceptable. API 653 emphasises the need for engineering experience
when evaluating a tank's suitability for service. It requires that evaluation be conducted by organisations that maintain or have
access to engineering and inspection personnel who are technically trained and experienced in tank issues.
An inspection program should address the four main storage tank components: the roof, shell, bottom and foundation. There are
several subcategories within these main components, including the tank bottom to shell connection, shell penetrations and roof
connections. There are other factors that can affect the life of tanks, including fixed fire fighting systems and floating roof drains.
These will not be considered here.
several subcategories within these main components, including the tank bottom to shell connection, shell penetrations and roof
connections. There are other factors that can affect the life of tanks, including fixed fire fighting systems and floating roof drains.
These will not be considered here.
Compliance with API 653 costs time and money.
Although compliance with API 653 is not mandatory,
such industry standards have always had the standing
of " good industry practice" in the view of most
regulatory authorities. Compliance with API 653 or a
corporate or other equivalent is really an investment,
in that the long term costs are likely to be more than
recouped, due to avoided costs of site remediation
from spills, potential fines and lost business. API 563
may also more directly reduce costs in demonstrating
that tanks built to older design standards continue to
be fit for service.
Although compliance with API 653 is not mandatory,
such industry standards have always had the standing
of " good industry practice" in the view of most
regulatory authorities. Compliance with API 653 or a
corporate or other equivalent is really an investment,
in that the long term costs are likely to be more than
recouped, due to avoided costs of site remediation
from spills, potential fines and lost business. API 563
may also more directly reduce costs in demonstrating
that tanks built to older design standards continue to
be fit for service.
Engineering analysis methods are potential alternatives to
repairing a problem tank. The decision on which approach to
take, repair or analysis, should be made on a case-by-case
basis on relative costs and schedule considerations. If using
the API 653 shell-thickness calculations based on minimal
data does not cause a severe fill-height restriction or
mandate extensive repairs, then the additional expense and
time required for further analysis may not be justified.
repairing a problem tank. The decision on which approach to
take, repair or analysis, should be made on a case-by-case
basis on relative costs and schedule considerations. If using
the API 653 shell-thickness calculations based on minimal
data does not cause a severe fill-height restriction or
mandate extensive repairs, then the additional expense and
time required for further analysis may not be justified.
However, if the initial inspection and evaluation results show that there is a significant problem then the additional
inspection and evaluation may be worthwhile. Thickness "averaging" is possible. With this approach, credit is taken
for reinforcement provided by thicker regions that are next to corroded regions of a tank shell. Similar credit may
be taken by performing thickness calculations based on specific elevations of corroded regions. This accounts for
actual hydrostatic head imposed at the corroded region, rather than making its minimum required thickness equal
to that required at the bottom of the particular shell course.
inspection and evaluation may be worthwhile. Thickness "averaging" is possible. With this approach, credit is taken
for reinforcement provided by thicker regions that are next to corroded regions of a tank shell. Similar credit may
be taken by performing thickness calculations based on specific elevations of corroded regions. This accounts for
actual hydrostatic head imposed at the corroded region, rather than making its minimum required thickness equal
to that required at the bottom of the particular shell course.
If analysis is required, API 653 provides guidelines for many types of repairs and alterations, including
patch plates, alteration of nozzles, bulge repairs, bottom repairs or replacement, roof repairs, floating
roof seal repairs, hot taps and repair of defective welds.Tank Inspection and Leak Methods Appendix C of
API 653 contains comprehensive checklists to perform in-service and out-of-service visual inspections.
Some checklist items relate to tank operational factors, such as whether the level control is operational,
while other items relate to structural integrity issues. The philosophy of API 653 is to gather data and to
perform a thorough initial inspection in order to establish a baseline for each tank inspection against
which future inspections may be used to determine rates of corrosion or changes that might affect
fitness for service. The scope of inspection is always subject to interpretation: for instance, a cursory or
limited inspection may miss the one pit in the floor that can lead to a leak. To inspect for floor top-side
corrosion, it is essential that the floor is cleaned by grit blasting. While expensive (several tens of
thousands of dollars for a crude tank), it has proven to be the only sure way of uncovering defects. It is
usually found that tank integrity assurance costs are dominated by cleaning / sludge removal activities
prior to inspection and application of confined space entry precautions, rather than by inspection costs.
patch plates, alteration of nozzles, bulge repairs, bottom repairs or replacement, roof repairs, floating
roof seal repairs, hot taps and repair of defective welds.Tank Inspection and Leak Methods Appendix C of
API 653 contains comprehensive checklists to perform in-service and out-of-service visual inspections.
Some checklist items relate to tank operational factors, such as whether the level control is operational,
while other items relate to structural integrity issues. The philosophy of API 653 is to gather data and to
perform a thorough initial inspection in order to establish a baseline for each tank inspection against
which future inspections may be used to determine rates of corrosion or changes that might affect
fitness for service. The scope of inspection is always subject to interpretation: for instance, a cursory or
limited inspection may miss the one pit in the floor that can lead to a leak. To inspect for floor top-side
corrosion, it is essential that the floor is cleaned by grit blasting. While expensive (several tens of
thousands of dollars for a crude tank), it has proven to be the only sure way of uncovering defects. It is
usually found that tank integrity assurance costs are dominated by cleaning / sludge removal activities
prior to inspection and application of confined space entry precautions, rather than by inspection costs.
| TANK FLOOR INSPECTION |
Magnetec
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |
TANK FLOOR / BOTTOM
INSPECTION
INSPECTION
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
