STABILITY OF STEEL OIL STORAGE TANKS

By James M. D u n c a n , 1 F. ASCE and T i m o t h y B. D'Orazio, 2

A. M . ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: Oil storage tanks built on weak and compressible foundations have
suffered catastrophic failures due to foundation instability. These experiences
are reviewed and used to establish simple procedures for evaluating factors of
safety against base shear failure and edge shear failure. Methods for averaging
foundation shear strength values for these two modes of failure are described,
which make it possible to apply simple bearing capacity formulas to conditions
where the shear strength of the foundation varies with depth, and where the
foundation contains or is overlain by layers of sand or gravel. Recommenda-
tions concerning minimum values of factor of safety against undrained foun-
dation failure are provided. In cases where the first loading of the foundation
is very slow, or where drainage is accelerated by sand drains, wick drains, or
natural sand lenses, appreciable drainage and strength gain occurs during water
load tests. Methods of rehabilitating tanks after failure of the foundation are
reviewed.

INTRODUCTION

Steel oil storage tanks are frequently constructed at sites w h e r e the

foundation soils are weak and compressible. In a n u m b e r of well-doc-
umented cases bearing capacity failures in the foundations of tanks have
resulted in severe damage and rupture of tanks, loss of contents, en-
vironmental damage, a n d even loss of h u m a n life. It is t h u s evident that
evaluating the stability of tanks founded on w e a k soils is a n important
aspect of their design.
Two modes of foundation instability have been observed in practice
base shear and edge shear. Base shear involves failure of the entire tank
acting as a unit, whereas edge shear involves local failure of a part of
the tank perimeter a n d a contiguous portion of the base. Both of these
modes of failure can be evaluated using available bearing capacity the-
ories that take into account the thickness of the weak soil layer beneath
the tank in comparison with the tank w i d t h .
When bearing capacity theories are applied to practical problems of
tank stability analysis, it is often found that the real conditions differ
somewhat from the idealized conditions on which the theories are based.
Real sites frequently have a gravel foundation p a d b e n e a t h the tank,
layers of sand or other soils overlying the weak foundation clays, layers
of granular soil within the weak foundation clay, or clay strength that
varies significantly with d e p t h in the foundation. Accounting for such
complications in a realistic m a n n e r is p e r h a p s the most important aspect
of applying bearing capacity theories to real-world tank stability studies.
To assess the usefulness of bearing capacity theories for tank stability
evaluations, a study has b e e n m a d e of 40 steel oil storage tanks, six of
'Prof, of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
2
Research Engr., Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
Note.Discussion open until February 1, 1985. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Technical and
Professional Publications. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for re-
view and possible publication on September 16, 1983. This paper is part of the
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 9, September, 1984. ASCE,
ISSN 0733-9410/84/0009-1219/$01.00. Paper No. 19125.
1219

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 TABLE 1.Characteristics
Tank and
q, in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Diam- tons
Height, eter, per
Roof in in square Tp, in
Tank Reference type meters meters meter meters
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
T-2 Bell & Iwakiri Unknown 17.5 32.0 12.5 0.0
(1980)
T-2 Bell & Iwakiri Unknown 17.5 32.0 16.5 0.0
(1980)
T-37 Carlson & Fricano Cone 14.6 45.7 14.2 0.7
(1961)
T-38 Carlson & Fricano Cone 14.6 45.7 14.0 0.7
(1961)
T-271 Bell & Iwakiri Dome 23.7 52.3 23.7 1.5
(1980)
T-19 Bell & Iwakiri Cone 17.1 45.7 16.0 1.5
(1980)
T-270 Bell & Iwakiri Dome 23.7 52.3 23.5 1.5
(1980)
T-322 Bell & Iwakiri Floating 14.6 47.5 14.6 2.0
(1980)
T-206 Bell & Iwakiri Cone 14.6 53.3 8.5 2.0
(1980)

T-401 Bell & Iwakiri Floating 14.6 61.6 12.8 2.0

(1980)
T-402 Bell & Iwakiri Floating 14.6 61.6 12.8 2.0
(1980)
T-404 Bell & Iwakiri Floating 14.6 61.6 12.8 2.0
(1980)
T-212 Bell & Iwakiri Cone 14.6 38.4 14.6 1.8
(1980)
T-4352 Bell & Iwakiri Cone 14.6 46.6 14.5 1.5
(1980)
T-4356 Bell & Iwakiri Cone 14.6 46.6 14.5 1.5
(1980)
Ancona Jamiolkowski Floating 22.0 96.2 21.0 3.0
(1975)
N-3000F Penman & Watson Floating 16.5 39.0 15.7 1.0
(1967)
T-2101-FD Penman & Watson Floating 16.5 56.6 16.5 1.0
(1967)
T-407 Bell & Iwakiri Floating 14.6 74.5 14.3 1.5
(1980)
Shellhaven Nixon (1949) Unknown 9.1 6.7 8.2 1.1
Quebec Brown & Paterson Unknown 13.4 21.3 12.5 3.7
(1964)
Grangemouth Saurin (1949) Unknown 9.2 35.4 9.1 0.6

1220

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 of Tanks Studied
Foundation Parameters
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

S, in
tons per
Tch, in square D e , in T, in
meters Description meter meters meters DJT Comment
(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
6.0 Clayey silt, 1.5-3.5 38.0 15.0 2.53 Ringwall
peat
6.0 Clayey silt, 1.5-3.5 38.0 15.0 2.53 Ringwall
peat
0.0 Silty sandy 2.5-4.8 46.4 12.0 3.87
clay
0.0 Silty sandy 2.5-4.8 46.5 12.0 3.88
clay
2.0 Silty clay 4.0-8.0 55.8 10.0 5.58 Preload, sand
drains
2.5 Clayey silt 1.3 avg 49.7 8.5 5.85

2.0 Silty clay 4.0-8.0 55.8 9.0 6.20 Preload, sand

drains
4.5 Clay, silty clay 2.5 avg 54.0 6.0 9.00

2.0 Clay, sandy 1.8-2.7 57.3 6.0 9.55 Extended di-

clay, clayey ameter pad
sand
,3.5 Clay, sandy 2.5 avg 67.1 7.0 9.59
clay
3.5 Clay, sandy 2.5 avg 67.1 7.0 9.59
clay
3.5 Clay, sandy 2.5 avg 67.1 7.0 9.59
clay
4.0 Clay, sandy 2.5 avg 44.2 4.5 9.82
silt
1.5 Silty clay 1.5 avg 49.6 8.0 6.20 Sand drains

1.5 Silty clay 1.5 avg 49.6 8.0 6.20 Sand drains

10.0 Gravelly silt, 4.0-7.0 109.2 15.0 7.28 Overburden

sandy clay compacted
0.0 Silty clay (soft 0.8-2.3 40.0 4.0 10.00 Thin sand
to firm) layers
0.0 Silty clay (soft 0.8-2.3 57.6 5.5 10.47 Thin sand
to firm) layers
4.0 Silty clay 1.5-3.0 80.0 6.0 13.33
(soft)
0.0 Clay 1.1 7.8 13.7 0.57
0.0 Clay 1.0-3.0 25.0 10.7 2.34

0.0 Silty clay 1.0 36.0 15.2 2.37

1221

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 TABLE 1.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
T-8 Bjerrum & Over- Unknown 12.2 25.0 11.2 1.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

land (1957)
T-39 Carlson & Fricano Cone 14.6 45.7 14.6 1.2
(1961)
T-1701 Bell & Iwakiri Cone 14.6 45.7 14.6 0.0
(1980)
T-GH Green and Hight Cone 12.8 17.1 12.8 1.0
(1975)
T-2402F Penman & Watson Unknown 14.6 13.7 14.6 1.3
(1967)
N-3002F Penman & Watson Unknown 9.1 14.6 9.1 1.3
(1967)
Santos Silva (1953) Unknown 9.1 36.6 7.5 1.5
T-40 Penman & Watson Floating 9.1 19.4 8.2 0.9
(1963)
N-3001F Penman & Watson Unknown 14.6 24.4 14.6 1.3
(1967)
T-KA Kalinovsky (1958) Cone 10.4 18.3 7.6 0.0
T-KB Kalinovsky (1958) Cone 10.4 18.3 7.6 0.0
T-2A Bell & Iwakiri Cone 9.1 76.2 8.2 1.5
(1980)
T-SA McClelland (1967) Cone 12.0 41.0 12.2 1.0
T-SB McClelland (1967) Cone 12.0 41.0 12.2 1.0
T-KC Kalinovsky (1958) Cone 11.6 24.4 7.3 0.0
T-KD Kalinovsky (1958) Floating 9.1 25.9 7.3 0.0
Isle of Grain Cooling and Cone 7.6 44.0 5.0 1.0
Gibson (1955)
Ravenna Belloni et al. (1975) Floating 14.7 67.0 13.3 2.0

which suffered foundation failures, and 34 of which were stable. It was

found that bearing capacity theory provided an effective means of sta-
bility analysis for these cases, and that the complicating factors men-
tioned previously can be accommodated in the analyses through simple
and systematic procedures. The studies also show that when sand drains
are installed within the foundation clays, or when the foundation clays
contain sand layers that serve to accelerate the rate of drainage, signif-
icant consolidation and strength gain may occur during the period of
water load testing.

TANK FOUNDATION FAILURES

The tank and foundation data for the tanks studied are summarized
in Table 1. Of these 40 tanks, six suffered foundation shear failure, and
two ruptured and spilled their contents as a result. One of the 40 tanks
(T-270) ruptured during service due to excessive settlement, even though
there was no shear failure within the foundation. The foundation and
loading conditions for the six foundation shear failures are shown in
Figs. 1-6.
The Quebec tank (4) was built at a site where the foundation consisted
1222

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 Continued
(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
1.0 Silty clay & 1.8-4.0 26.0 9.0 2.89 Ringwall
clay
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5.8 Silty clay, 1.8-9.3 52.7 16.0 3.29

sandy clay
3.0 Silt 0.6 48.7 3.0 16.23

5.0 Peat and clay 1.2-4.5 23.1 10.0 2.3

0.0 Silty clay 0.8-2.3 15.0 4.7 3.2 Thin sand

layers
0.0 Silty clay 0.8-2.3 15.9 4.7 3.4 Thin sand
layers
3.5 Organic clay 1.4-5.0 41.6 9.5 4.4 Sand drains
0.0 Silty clay 1.4-7.0 20.3 3.7 5.5

0.0 Silty clay 0.8-2.3 25.7 4.7 5.5 Thin sand

layers
2.7 Clay 0.5-1.25 21.0 3.7 5.7
2.7 Clay 0.5-1.25 21.0 3.7 5.7
6.0 Clay 1.7-2.4 83.7 12.0 7.0

2.0 Clay 1.2-4.5 44.0 6.0 7.3

2.0 Clay 1.2-4.5 44.0 6.0 7.3
2.7 Clay 0.5-1.25 27.1 3.7 7.3
2.7 Clay 0.5-1.25 28.6 3.7 7.7
0.0 Clay 1.0-1.8 44.9 5.0 9.0

5.0 Sandy silt 2.5 74.0 5.0 14.8

D=2l.3m

H=l3.4m M l"l r -dike

une
/ /-surface
-*f- crust
2
Uda clay (soft to firm) \v ^ // Su=,0 . 3 0 t / m
f IO
o

CMI5r
E rx-shear
> IO I failure
6
a e;L
J
rt

5 IO
Time, months

FIG. 1.Quebec Tank

1223

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 D = 45.7m

H = 14.6 m I ' Sond (fine tomed.)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

E 0
.c"
X -Cinders
'Silt(vsoft)
Sf IOL
o

Or
settlement between
original construction
c and first rupture
e 0.2
settlement between
1 0.3h first relevel and
second rupture
0.4L

FIG. 2 Tank T-1701

D=6.7m

H = 9.7m surface
crust
Or-

Gray clay (soft)

Sul.lt/rn
10- * raw ^~ 7/5PT-
Q.
0)
20L

I5r
w
I0-
*--failure
shear

1 *
0 _L_J L
2 4 6 8 10
Time, months

FIG. 3.Shellhaven Tank

1224

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 of sensitive Leda clay. The tank was not water tested, and it failed about
24 hr after its first complete filling with oil. The tank ruptured com-
pletely and the contents spilled. Using the methods described in the
following section, the factor of safety against base shear was found to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

be E(, = 1.05, and the factor of safety against edge shear was found to
be Fe = 1.02. These values of Fb and Fe calculated using peak strength
values appear to provide a good assessment of foundation stability, and
it thus seems to be unnecessary to apply a reduction factor to account
for sensitivity, even for clays as highly sensitive as the Leda clay.
Tank T-1701 (1) was constructed at a site containing a layer of very
soft silt as shown in Fig. 2. It failed during water load testing, and was
releveled. Subsequently, when filled again with water, it failed a second
time; the measured settlements after the two failures are shown in Fig.
2. The factors of safety calculated for this case were Fb = 0.44 and Fe =
0.73. After the second failure the tank was reconstructed on a pile foun-
dation, and was then stable.
The Shellhaven Tank (11) was built on a chalk mat over a thick layer
of soft clay (see Fig. 3). It was filled over a five-day period, and failed
within a few hours after filling was completed. The calculated base shear
factor of safety was Fb = 0.86. The edge shear factor of safety could not
be evaluated accurately for this case because data was not available for
the dried crust on top of the clay. The properties of this dried crust have
a much smaller influence on the deeper-seated base shear slip surface.
Owing to the fact that the thickness of the soft clay was large compared
to the tank diameter, it would be expected that base shear would be
more critical.
Tank T-8 (3) was built on a very thin concrete mat and a gravel pad
over soft to stiff marine clays. In an effort to put the tank in service
quickly, it was filled with water in 35 hr, and it failed after two hours
of being fully loaded as indicated in Fig. 4. The failure occurred on the
side of the site where bedrock was shallower, and an investigation showed
D = 25.0 m
H
H=l2.2m h<l
0 4
_ Silt sick)* (soft to stift) V> //
e IO-
Cloy (soft to stiff) s 7;. 4 0 t/m 2
& 20-
o
30-

5 10
Time, months

FIG. 4.Tank T-8

1225

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 ,. Clay (soft)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

V'-8-9-3t/mz

rapid settlement and

tilting commenced
15 tank considered
unsafe for service

5 10
Time, months

Modified Tank Foundation

Compacted granular fill

Clay (soft)

Silty clay (stiff)-

Silty sandy clay (v. soft to stiff)

FIG. 5.Tank T-39

that the clay was weaker in this area. Interestingly, Bjerrum and Over-
land noted that it is commonly found that Norwegian clays are weakest
where bedrock is shallowest. The factors of safety calculated for this case
using the methods described in this paper were Fb = 1.80 and Fe = 1.10.
Bjerrum and Overland (3) calculated similar values using slightly differ-
ent procedures. The foundation of the tank was repaired after the fail-
ure, and the tank was refilled very slowly with water, over a period of
2 yr. This slow filling was successful in consolidating and strengthening
the clay, and the tank was subsequently used satisfactorily.
Tank T-39 (5) was built in eastern Venezuela at a site where the foun-
dation soils were very soft to stiff clays extending to a depth of about
20 m. The tank was filled nearly full in a period of 33 days, and the rate
of settlement decreased steadily after filling stopped, as indicated in Fig.
5. However, after the tank was filled completely, the tank failed, settling
rapidly and tilting. The factors of safety calculated for this case were Fb
= 1.04 and Fe = 0.96. After about two months, the tank had settled 1.75
m at one point on the edge, and it was taken out of service. An inves-
tigation of the tank bottom revealed that a shear failure had taken place
along the southwest edge of the tank. To repair the tank the site was
flooded and the tank was floated to a nearby location. The site was then
drained and the upper soft clay layer was removed and replaced with
a layer of compacted shale. The tank was then floated back into position,
and a surcharge berm was built around it. Subsequently the tank was
water load tested and put into service successfully.
1226

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 D = 35.4r

H = 92m -surface
I I crust
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Silty clay S u =I.Ot/m

(v. soft)

10 .-shear failure
noticed
5-

5 10
Time, months

D= 35.4 m,

| 0.2

I -4
w 0.6 Edge shear
failure

Tank Bottom Settlement

FIG. 6.Grangemouth Tank

The Grangemouth Tank (15) was built on an 0.6 m pad of compacted

shale over a deep layer of very soft clay, as shown in Fig. 6. During the
water load test a gradual shear failure occurred, and this was noticed
after the tank had been full for 42 days. The measured settlement at one
location on the tank bottom exceeded 50 cm; about 7 cm of ground heave
was measured adjacent to the tank edge. The factors of safety calculated
for this case were Fb - 0.81 and Fe - 0.72.
These case histories illustrate a number of important points:
1. Foundation instability may develop quickly or slowly. It often re-
sults in large nonuniform settlements and tilting of the tank, and can
lead to complete rupture of the tank and loss of contents.
2. Either base shear or edge shear may be the critical failure mecha-
nism, and both should be evaluated.
3. Thin layers near the surface have a greater effect on the edge shear
factor of safety than on the base shear factor, because the edge shear
mechanism is shallower.
4. It appears to be unnecessary to apply a reduction factor to the peak
strength of sensitive clays to allow for clay sensitivity. Peak strength
values, together with the methods outlined in this paper, appear to pro-
vide reasonable evaluations of stability even for clays as sensitive as the
Leda clay.
5. Tanks have been successfully stabilized after failure by: (1) Recon-
struction on pile foundations; (2) repair, releveling, and very slow filling;
1227

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 and (3) floating the tank off, replacing soft foundation soils, and con-
structing a stabilizing berm.

PROPOSED METHOD OF STABILITY ANALYSIS

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In many cases where tanks are constructed on weak clay foundations,

the clay is overlain by a granular overburden layer, or a compacted soil
pad, or both. A typical condition is shown in Fig. 7. For such cases the
influence of the overlying granular layers can be taken into account by
spreading out the load over a larger diameter at the top of the clay layer.
In the analyses performed during this study, the load spread was as-
sumed to be 2:1 as shown in Fig. 7, and the equivalent diameter (De)
can thus be expressed
De=D + Tp + T0 (1)
in which De = diameter of loaded area at top of clay; D = tank diameter;
Tp = pad thickness; and Tob = overburden thickness. The bearing pres-
sure acting on this area at the top of the clay can be expressed as

+ 7 +y bT (2)
He = >
FJ ^r^' >'
in which qe = bearing pressure at top of clay; q = bearing pressure due
to liquid in tank and weight of tank; yp = pad unit weight; and yob =
overburden unit weight.
Base Shear Failure.The mechanism of base shear failure is very sim-
ilar to the mechanism for bearing failure of a shallow footing on clay,
as shown in Fig. 8. If the clay layer is thicker than 0.7 De, the slip sur-
face will probably not extend to the base of the layer, as shown in Fig.
8(c). If the clay layer is thinner, as shown in Fig. 8(a) and 8(b), the slip
surface will most likely extend to the base of the layer. When the layer
is very thin compared to the tank diameter, as in Fig. 8(a), the mode of
failure involves the clay being squeezed outward laterally from beneath
the tank.

77T^ 777?rr

FIG. 7.Load Spread Through Granular Overburden Layer

1228

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 For D e / T > 6
N q = 4.1+ l/3!D e /T)
Su is averoged over entire
De/T = 6 depth of layer
Foilure mechanism is influenced
by firm base
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

^s^
For 1.4 < 0 e / T < 6
Nc= 6.1
S is overaged over entire
D/T = 3.6 depth of layer
I I Failure mechanism is influenced
hy f i r m hnse

Fbr D e A < 1.4

Nc= 6.1
S u is overaged only to deepest
0.AM.2 point on shear surface
-v Failure mechanism is as shown

0.7 D,

FIG. 8.Base Shear Failure Mechanisms

For any of these cases, the ultimate base shear bearing capacity can
be expressed as
limit = SUNC + yt,Tob (3)
in which qiuit = ultimate bearing capacity for base shear; S = average
undrained shear strength of clay; and Nc = dimensionless bearing ca-
pacity factor for base shear.
For a clay layer thicker than one-sixth of the tank diameter (for De/T
s 6), Meyerhof (lecture given at the Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, on the
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations, in 1981) has shown that the
value of Nc is the same as for a circular footing on a deep clay layer:

Nc = 6.1 for < 6 (4)

T
For a thinner clay layer, Meyerhof suggested that the value of Nc can
be determined from the following simple expression:

Nc = 4.1 + for > 6 (5)

3T T
in which T = clay layer thickness.
The value of Nc increases as the clay layer becomes thinner, because
1229

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 the mechanism of failure is increasingly restricted due to the fact that
the clay is sandwiched between the bottom of the tank and the under-
lying firm layer. Thus, with very thin clay layers, base shear becomes a
less likely mode of failure.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

For conditions where the clay layer beneath a tank contains embedded
layers of sand, their thicknesses are subtracted from the total thickness
to determine the value of T for use with Eqs. 4 and 5.
The factor of safety against base shear is defined as

Fb = ^ (6)

which may be expressed as

r SUNC + yobTob
t
b - ~,r~2 ~, ri v>
q +7pr +y tT b
w >nrv
Although including the term yobTob in both the numerator and the de-
nominator as shown in Eq. 7 has a fully logical basis, it has the effect
of biasing the value of Fb toward unity. In the analyses performed dur-
ing this investigation, the term yobTob was subtracted from both the nu-
merator (the bearing capacity) and from the denominator (the bearing
pressure) resulting in the following expression for Fb:
S,,NC
Fb = = - j (8)

Eq. 7 may be viewed as an expression for Fb based on gross load at

the top of the clay layer, and Eq. 8 as an expression for Fb based on net
load. Both give the same result when Fb = 1.00, but Eq. 8 is more sen-
sitive to the shear strength of the clay. It is recommended for that reason
that Eq. 8 be used to evaluate Fb; the principal reason for evaluating Fh
is to compare its value to the possible range of uncertainty in the clay
strength, which is nearly always the quantity with which the greatest
uncertainty is associated, and Eq. 8 seems better suited to this assessment.
In applying Eq. 8 to cases where the clay strength varies with depth
beneath the tank, a weighted average value of shear strength is used.
The weighting factors can be estimated by considering the length of slip
surface within each segment of the failure zone within the clay layer.
For the studies summarized in this paper, the shape of the slip surface
within the clay was approximated as a semicircle, which can be shown
to correspond to the following weighting equation:
SUm = 0.17SU1 + 0.18S2 + 0.213 + 0.44S4 (9)
in which Save = weighted average strength along entire failure zone;
SUl = average strength within upper one-fourth of failure zone; S2 =
average strength in upper middle one-fourth of failure zone; S 3 = av-
erage strength in lower middle one-fourth of failure zone; and S4 =
average strength in lower one-fourth of failure zone.
1230

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 If the slip surface being investigated subtends embedded layers of sand,
their strengths can be estimated using the equation
S = ah. tan 4>' (10)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in which ov = effective normal stress on vertical plane = (1 - sin 4>')

cri, where <J'V = vertical effective stress; and <(>' = effective stress friction
angle for sand.
Using <jv in Eq. 10 corresponds to the approximation that the failure
plane crosses the sand layer vertically, and provides a conservative es-
timate of the sand strength for any other orientation, since <rK is smaller
than the stress on any other plane.
The shear strength of a granular foundation pad or naturally occurring
layer of granular material overlying the foundation clay layer is not in-
cluded in the stability Eqs. 7 or 8. The slip surfaces are assumed to begin
and to end at the top of the clay layer (the base of the granular layer)
and not to extend through the granular layer, as indicated by the re-
search studies described by Meyerhof and shown in Fig. 8. The weight
of a granular layer beneath a tank adds to the load on the foundation,
and its presence has the effect of spreading the tank load over an area
larger than the base of the tank. Alongside a tank, the weight of a gran-
ular layer provides a stabilizing surcharge load.
As discussed in the following section a granular layer has a somewhat
different effect on edge shear stability because the shear surface extends
upward to the base of the tank in that case, as shown in Fig. 9. The
outer end of the slip surface stops at the base of the granular layer,
however, for both base shear and edge shear failure mechanisms.
In cases where there is a significant variation of soil strength with depth,
it is not possible to determine in advance how deep the critical base
shear slip surface will extend beneath the tank. For these cases, several
trials may be needed to determine the minimum value of Fb. Each trial
involves assuming a depth to which the slip surface extends, calculating
the corresponding value of Nc using Eq. 4 or 5, evaluating the average
shear strength over this depth using Eq. 9, and calculating Fb using
Eq. 8.
Edge Shear Failure.The mechanism of edge shear failure shown in
Fig. 9 is possible because the tank bottom is flexible, so that a portion
of width B can move independently of the adjacent area of the tank
bottom.

I i k-fi-

assumed shear surface

for strength calculation
#/AV

FIG. 9.Edge Shear Failure Mechanism

1231

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 In analyzing edge shear stability, the loads were not spread out with
depth through the tank pad and overburden. Although load spreading
may occur to some degree, it is less important than for base shear, and
the degree of load spreading is dependent on the width B. For purposes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of analysis the net load was calculated using the expression:

qm = q + lvTp (11)
in which qapp = applied load at the top of the clay layer, and the other
terms are as defined previously.
The ultimate bearing capacity for the edge shear mode can be calcu-
lated using the expression
qeuit = Su-Nc + ypTp (12)
in which qeuU = ultimate bearing capacity for the edge shear mode; S
= average undrained shear strength; and Nc = bearing capacity factor
for edge shear.
Bjerrum (3) suggested that the value of Nc for the edge shear failure
mode could be expressed as
B
Nc = 5.2 + - (13)
D
in which B = width of segment involved in edge shear failure; and D
= tank diameter. The values of Nc for edge shear vary from 5.2-6.2,
while those for base shear are greater than or equal to 6.1.
The value of S to be used in Eq. 12 is a weighted average value along
the slip surface. Unlike the shear strength that resists base shear, the
shear strength that resists edge shear includes the strength of the pad
and the overburden beneath the tank. Although these granular layers
contribute shearing resistance beneath the tank, Meyerhof has found that
when strong soils overlie weak soils (such as a granular overburden over
a soft clay) the shear surface will not extend upward through the strong
soil at the sides of the loaded area. Instead the strong layer will be bulged
up, and the slip surface will end at the base of the granular layer, as
shown in Fig. 10. The weighting factors shown in Fig. 10 can be used
to calculated the average value of S for these cases. The shear strength
of the pad and overburden layers can be estimated using Eq. 10.
The critical slip surface depth for edge shear (or the critical value of
B) is determined by repeated trial. For each trial the slip surface is con-
sidered to be a segment of a circular arc with radius B, with its center
at the base of the tank wall, as shown in Fig. 9. Each trial involves as-
suming a value for B, calculating the corresponding value of Nc using
Eq. 13, evaluating the average shear strength using the factors shown
in Fig. 10, and calculating the edge shear factor of safety using the fol-
lowing equation:

Fe = ^ (14)
qapp

Summary.The procedures for calculating F b and Fe described in the

preceding paragraphs evolved through a study of the stability of 42 steel
tanks on weak clay and silt foundations. It was found that to apply bear-

1232

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

VK^o'.is.'-.; - ^ .".";

Use the weighting factors from one of

the figures shown above to average
strength values. Choose the one most
appropriate depending on the presence
and thickness of granular overburden.

S =k,S + k_S +kS +k S

u In 2 u 3 u, 4 u
avg 1 2 3 4

FIG. 10.Averaging Shear Strengths for Edge Shear

ing capacity theory to these cases required adjustments for the effects
of granular layers overlying and interbedded within the clays and silts,
and for variations of the strengths of the cohesive soils with depth. The
procedures described in the previous sections were found to be reason-
ably simple to use and applicable to a wide variety of realistic conditions.
Judging from the results discussed in the next section, they appear to
provide quite reasonable evaluations of tank stability.

FACTORS OF SAFETY

Examination of the calculated values of factor of safety for the 40 tanks

in Table 1 indicate that the results are generally in good agreement with
field experience, and appear to be free of systematic bias. The minimum
acceptable values of safety factor against base shear and edge shear thus
depend in large part on the degree of certainty or uncertainty with which
the undrained shear strength of the foundation can be evaluated. In cases
where the strength of the foundation clay can be evaluated with minimal
uncertainty, and the consequences of failure do not involve risk to life
or catastrophic financial loss, factors of safety as low as 1.3 are accept-
able. In cases where the foundation strength evaluations involve greater
uncertainty, and where the consequences of failure are severe, larger
safety factors should be used.

COMPARISON OF CALCULATIONS WITH FIELD PERFORMANCE

The principal factors governing stability and the calculated factors of

safety for the tanks studied are shown in Table 2, together with an in-
1233

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 TABLE 2.Factors of Safety
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FOUNDATION
Edge Shear
s
a V 8 ' i n <?, in <7pp, i n Sav8. i n
tons per tons per tons per tons per
square Bjerrum square square Undrained square
Tank meter Nc meter meter F, meter
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
T-2 3.2 5.9 18.88 12.50 1.51 2.8
T-2 3.4 5.9 20.06 16.50 1.22 2.0
T-37 3.3 5.5 18.15 15.46 1.17 3.0
T-38 3.3 5.5 18.15 15.44 1.18 3.0
T-271 6.2 5.5 34.10 26.70 1.28 5.6
T-19 2.0 5.5 11.00 19.00 0.58 1.3
T-270 6.4 5,5 35.20 26.50 1.33 5.6
T-322 4.0 5.5 11.00 18.60 1.18 2.5
T-206 2.9 5.4 15.60 8.50 1.84 2.1
T-401 3.8 5.4 20.52 16.80 1.22 2.5
T-402 3.8 5.4 20.52 16.80 1.22 2.5
T-404 3.8 5.4 20.52 16.80 1.22 2.5
T-212 4.1 5.5 22.55 18.20 1.24 2.5
T-4352 2.1 5.4 11.34 17.50 0.65 1.1

T-4356 2.1 5.4 11.34 17.50 0.65 1.1

Ancona 7.6 5.5 41.80 27.00 1.55 5.3
N-3000F 1.9 5.3 10.07 17.70 0.57 1.2
T-2101-FD 1.9 5.3 10.07 18.50 0.54 1.2
T-407 2.7 5.4 14.58 17.30 0.84 2.5
Sheilhaven Unknown Unknown Unknown 9.96 Unknown 1.1
Quebec 3.3 5.9 19.47 19.16 1.02 2.7

Grangemouth 1.3 5.6 7.28 10.06 0.72 1.3

T-8 2.2 5.6 12.32 11.20 1.10 3.2
T-39 2.8 5.7 15.96 16.64 0.96 2.2
T-1701 2.0 5.3 10.60 14.60 0.73 0.6

T-GH 3.9 6.1 23.9 14.8 1.62 3.1

T-2402F 1.8 5.6 10.1 17.2 0.59 1.2
N-3002F 1.5 5.6 8.6 11.7 0.73 1.2
Santos 4.0 5.6 22.4 10.5 2.13 3.4
T-40 3.3 5.5 17.7 9.95 1.78 3.1
N-3001F 1.8 5.5 9.8 17.2 0.57 1.2
T-KA 1.4 5.6 7.7 7.6 1.02 1.0
T-KB 1.4 5.6 7.7 7.6 1.02 1.0
T-2A 3.2 5.5 17.5 11.2 1.56 2.4
T-SA 4.1 5.4 22.1 14.2 1.56 2.9,
T-SB 4.1 5.4 22.1 14.2 1.56 2.9
T-KC 1.4 5.5 7.5 7.3 1.03 1.0
T-KD 1.4 5.5 7.5 7.3 1.03 1.0
Isle of Grain 2.2 5.3 11.7 7.0 1.67 . 2.1
Ravenna 4.7 5.4 25.3 17.3 1.46 2.5

1234

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 and Stability of Tanks Studied
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

STABILITY
Base Shear
quit, in q,, In
Meyer- tons per tons per Un- - Un-
hof square square drained drained
meter meter F . Comment
Ft x
mm
(8) 0) (10) (11) (12) (13)
6.1 17.1 8.90 1.90 1.51 Tank releveled
6.1 17.1 11.7 1.46 1.22 After relevel and 2nd test
6.1 18.30 15.03 1.22 1.17
6.1 18.30 14.96 1.22 1.18
6.1 33.90 23.60 1.44 1.28 Rapid drainage
6.1 7.90 16.30 0.48 0.48 Tank releveled
6.1 33.90 23.40 1.45 1.33 Tank ruptured in service
7.1 17.70 14.70 1.21 1.18
7.3 18.33 11.10 1.65 1.65
7.3 18.30 14.50 1.26 1.22
7.3 18.30 14.50 1.26 1.22
7.3 18.30 14.50 1.26 1.22
7.4 18.30 14.10 1.30 1.24
6.2 6.82 15.60 0.44 0.44 Rapid drainage, slow
loading
6.2 6.82 15.60 0.44 0.44 Rapid drainage
6.5 34.50 21.30 1.62 1.55 Tank edge releveled
7.4 9.18 16.92 0.54 0.54 Rapid drainage
7.6 9.42 17.93 0.53 0.53 Rapid drainage
8.5 21.30 15.10 1.41 0.84 Drainage beneath edge
6.1 6.71 7.81 0.86 0.86 Shear failure
6.1 16.47 15.73 1.05 1.02 Shear failure, tank
rupture
6.1 7.90 9.76 0.81 0.72 Shear failure
6.1 19.50 10.40 1.88 1.10 Shear failure
6.1 13.30 12.70 1.04 0.96 Shear failure
9.5 5.70 12.90 0.44 0.44 Shear failure, tank
rupture
6.1 18.8 8.3 2.26 1.62
6.1 7.6 14.8 0.51 0.51 Rapid drainage
6.1 7.6 10.3 0.73 0.73 Rapid drainage
6.1 20.4 8.4 2.44 2.13 Rapid drainage
6.1 18.9 9.2 2.05 1.78
6.1 7.6 15.8 0.48 0.48 Rapid drainage
6.1 6.1 5.8 1.06 1.02
6.1 6.1 5.8 1.06 1.02
6.4 15.1 9.5 1.59 1.56
6.5 18.7 12.4 1.50 1.50
6.5 18.7 12.4 1.50 1.50
6.5 6.5 5.9 1.10 1.03
6.7 6.7 6.0 1.11 1.03
7.1 15.6 4.8 3.30 1.67
9.0 22.6 14.4 1.57 1.46

1235

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 dication of whether the tank was stable or unstable. The results shown
in the table can be summarized as:

1. In all cases where failures occurred, the minimum factor of safety

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

calculated was 1.1 or less.

2. In each of the nine cases where the minimum calculated factor of
safety was less than 1.0 and no failure took place, the strength of the
foundation was increased during loading by drainage and consolidation.
As noted in the table, this was accomplished in some cases by slow
water load testing, and in other cases by the use of sand drains or wicks
to accelerate foundation drainage. At two of the sites natural sand layers
within the cohesive foundation soils provided rapid drainage. Through
these means, tanks with calculated minimum safety factors as low as
0.44 were loaded without failure.

These results indicate that the methods described in the previous sec-
tion provide a reasonable procedure for evaluating the undrained stability
of steel tanks on weak clays and silts. It is also clear that if slow loading
is possible, or if rapid drainage can be achieved, foundation stability can
be improved very significantly by consolidation of the foundation during
the first loading.

EFFECT OF FOUNDATION PAD ON TANK STABILITY

To provide good drainage and a firm surface for tank construction, it

is often desirable to construct a pad of granular material beneath a tank.
However, parametric studies showed that such foundation pads always
reduce the base shear factor of safety (Fb). A thicker pad spreads the
loads over a wider area, but the dominant factor is the increased bearing
pressure resulting from the weight of the pad. Since the unit weight of
a sand or gravel pad is about 2.5 times as great as the unit weight of
oil, even a one or two-meter thick pad can have quite a significant in-
fluence on Fb. Therefore, in cases where base shear is critical, it is de-
sirable to minimize the thickness of the foundation pad.
In cases where edge shear is more critical than base shear, stability
can sometimes be improved by a foundation pad. To improve stability
the pad should extend beyond the edge of the tank a distance equal to
the depth of the critical edge shear slip surface (B in Fig. 9). Under this
condition the pad provides a surcharge outside the tank equal to the
added load due to its weight. It also provides some added shearing re-
sistance at the innermost end of the slip surface, thereby improving sta-
bility. Whether the improvement in stability is significant or not depends
on the depth of the critical edge shear slip surface: The deeper this sur-
face, the smaller the influence of the pad. Deeper slip surfaces also re-
quired a wider pad, which is more costly. Considering the fact that a
pad always reduces the base shear factor of safety, it is unlikely that a
pad thicker than one or two meters would provide overall improvement
of stability.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on the studies described in the previous sections, the following

1236

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 conclusions regarding the current state-of-the-art of stability studies for
steel tanks appear to be warranted:

1. A n u m b e r of well-documented failures indicate the importance of

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

careful evaluation of the stability of steel oil storage tanks. Foundation

instability m a y develop quickly or slowly. It often results in large non-
uniform settlements and tilting of the tank, a n d can lead to complete
rupture of the tank a n d loss of contents.
2. Both theory and experience show that the critical m o d e of failure
may involve either base shear or edge shear. Shallow and thin weak
layer have a greater effect on edge shear stability, whereas d e e p a n d
thick weak layers have a greater effect on base shear stability.
3. The methods of analysis described in this paper provide reasonably
simple and accurate means of evaluating the factors of safety against
base shear and edge shear failure.
4. It does not appear to be necessary to apply a reduction factor to
the peak strength of sensitive clays for p u r p o s e s of evaluating steel tank
stability.
5. Significant increase in the strength of cohesive foundation soils can
be achieved during the first loading of a tank if the loading is slow, or
if drainage is accelerated by sand drains, wicks, or natural sand lenses.
6. A granular foundation p a d one or two meters thick can improve
edge shear stability in some cases, b u t such a p a d always reduces the
base shear stability.
7. Tanks have been rehabilitated after failure by reconstruction on piles,
repair and subsequent slow reloading, a n d by floating the tank off its
foundation in order to excavate and replace a thin weak foundation layer.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Financial support for these studies w a s provided by a grant from Nik-

ken-Sekkei of Japan to the University of California, Berkeley, and Dr.
Yoshio Ozawa of Nikken-Sekkei provided advice a n d information that
was of great assistance. Mr. Roy Bell of Dames & Moore provided m u c h
of the data regarding tank performance a n d m a n y helpful discussions
throughout this study. Ms. Marcia Golner typed the text and Mrs. Gloria
Pelatowski drafted the figures.

APPENDIX.REFERENCES

1. Bell, Roy A., and Iwakiri, Jun, "Settlement Comparison used in Tank Failure
Study," ASCE JGED, Feb., 1980, pp. 153-169.
2. Belloni, L., Barassino, A., and Jamiolkowski, M , "Differential Settlements
of Petroleum Steel Tanks," Proceedings British Geotechnical Society Conference
on Settlement of Structures, Pentech Press, London, England, 1975, pp. 323-
328.
3. Bjerrum, L., and Overland, A., "Foundation Failure of an Oil Tank in Fred-
rikstad, Norway," 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. I, 1957, pp. 287-290.
4. Brown, J. D., and Paterson, W. G., "Failures of an Oil Storage Tank on a
Sensitive Marine Clay," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. I, No. 4, Nov.,
1964, pp. 205-214.
5. Carlson, Emery D., and Fricano, Stephen P., "Tank Foundations in Eastern
1237

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.

 Venezuela," ASCE-JSMFD, Oct., 1961, pp. 69-90.
6. Cooling, L. F., and Gibson, R. E., "Settlement Studies on Structures in En-
gland," Conference on the Correlation Between Calculated and Observed
Stresses & Displacements in Structures, Institute of Civil Engineers, 1955,
pp. 295-317.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by L & T Institute of Project Management on 06/09/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

7. Gibson, R. E., and Marsland, A., "Pore Water Pressure Observations in a

Saturated Alluvial Deposit Beneath a Loaded Oil Tank," Conference on Pore
Pressure and Suction in Soils, 1960, pp. 112-119.
8. Green, P. A., and Hight, G. W., "The Failure of Two Oil Storage Tanks
Caused by Differential Settlement," Proceedings British Geotechnical Society
Conference on Settlement of Structures, Pentech Press, London, England, 1975.
9. Jamiolkowski, M., discussion of Proceedings British Geotechnical Society Confer-
ence on Settlement of Structures, Pentech Press, London, England, 1975, pp.
787-799.
10. Kalinovsky, B. S., "Settlement of Tanks on Reclaimed Tidelands," Dames and
Moore Engineering Bulletin, Dec, 1958.
11. Nixon, I. K., "<f> = 0 Analysis," Geotechniaue, Vol. I, No. 3, 1949, pp. 208-
209.
12. Penman, A. D. M., and Watson, G. H., "Settlement Observations on an Oil
Tank," Proceedings European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering, 1963, pp. 163-171.
13. Penman, A. D. M., and Watson, G. H., "The Improvement of a Tank Foun-
dation by the Weight of its own Test Load," 6th International Conference on
SM&FE, Vol. 2, 1965, pp. 169-173.
14. Penman, A. D. M., and Watson, G. H., "Foundations for Storage Tanks on
Reclaimed Land at Teesmouth," Proceedings ICE, Vol. 37, May, 1967, pp. 19-
42.
15. Saurin, B. F., "Test on a Large Surface Foundation," Geotechniaue, Vol. 1,
No. 4, pp. 272-274.
16. Silva, F, P., "Controlling the Stability of a Foundation Through Neutral Pres-
sure Measurements," 3rd International Conference on SMFE, Session 3/16, 1953,
pp. 299-301.

1238

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1984.110:1219-1238.