Elements of an API 653 Tank Inspection

(I do not remember where I found this: I hope it is not copyrighted)

Elements of an API 653 Tank Inspection
API 653 addresses aboveground, atmospheric pressure, steel storage tanks. Two
things should be remembered about API 653: 1. Its purpose is to prevent
catastrophic-tank failure due to brittle fracture, and 2. It is an engineering-driven
document. In this latter respect, it departs from previous inspection specifications,
since it requires an engineering analysis of the inspection data. Thickness
measurements must be evaluated to ensure that the tank is structurally sound and
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 merely
ensuring that it will not fail catastrophically, since even a small leak is considered
unacceptable. Section 2 of API 653 addresses tank suitability-for-service and
specifies tank inspection requirements. API 653 also defines requirements for
repairs and alterations, and dismantling and reconstruction.
An inspection program should address the four main storage-tank components: the
roof, shell, bottom and foundation (Fig. 1). There are several subcategories within
these main components, including the tank bottom-to-shell connection, shell
penetrations and roof connections. Appendix C of API 653 contains 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. One way to use these
checklists is extract those items that influence structural integrity and over-filling
protection measures for a third-party tank inspection, and leave operational-related
items for the owner to assess.
The roof. API 653 requires an evaluation of the roof thickness, its support system
and any change in service conditions. Roof plates that are below 0.09 in. thick in an
area of 100 in.2 must be repaired or replaced to prevent personnel from falling
through the roof.
Shell. A thorough inspection of the tank shell is more critical, because the shell sees
the highest pressure stresses and is where most spectacular failures occur. Wallthickness measurement is required, as well as visual examination for obvious flaws
and deterioration. API 653 provides equations to calculate the minimum required
shell-course thicknesses and methods to evaluate corroded and pitted areas (Fig.
2).
API 653 recognizes that fabrication and inspection records for existing, old storage
tanks may be incomplete and the original degree of inspection and the construction
material may be unknown. However, it still allows a safe, structural integrity
evaluation of such tanks by using conservative assumptions. In these cases, shellthickness calculations must use a low weld joint efficiency of 0.7. Also, it must be
assumed that a relatively low-strength material was used. These evaluation
requirements can place an artificial limitation on the maximum acceptable liquid-fill
height where the original weld-joint efficiency or material strength was higher than
what API 653 would allow. This stresses the importance of maintaining proper tankdesign, fabrication and inspection records.
API 653 does not explicitly state how many thickness-measurement points must be
used in each shell course or plate. Thus, the owner must decide the quantity of
measurements to identify severely corroded areas in each shell course. If the tank
is out-of-service and the interior is accessible for visual examination, a minimum
number of measurements should establish nominal thicknesses, when combined

with additional inspection of localized corroded areas. The required future-corrosion

allowance is estimated to ensure that the shell will not thin below the minimum
acceptable level before the next inspection.
One area not addressed by API 653 is how to handle existing shell details that are
not permitted for a current repair or alteration. A common occurrence with tank
inspections is finding lap-patch repairs. Shell-lap patches are not permitted by API
653. However, it does not address how to handle existing lap patches on tank
shells. One way to proceed is to decide whether the lap patch is on a plate that is
over or under 0.5 in. thick. This thickness has been established as a threshold for
susceptibility to brittle fracture. If the lap patch is on a plate greater than 0.5 in.
thick, it would be prudent to inspect the condition of the attachment welds and
schedule replacement with an insert plate. The attachment welds for remaining lap
patches should be inspected for cracks, and the patch-plate thickness and
attachment-weld size should be confirmed as adequate for the imposed hydrostatic
head. The liquid-fill height may be reduced if the lap patch is proven inadequate
and should be replaced with an insert patch.
Bottom. Another area where API 653 inspection requirements depart from historical
practices is the tank bottom. API requires that both the topside and underside of
the tank bottom be considered when evaluating remaining thickness. General
corrosion and pitting rates are also considered. The primary concern here is for
leaks through the bottom into the environment. However, larger minimum thickness
requirements are specified for the bottom annular ring, since the annular ring also
performs a load-bearing function. Again, API 653 does not mandate specific
bottom-plate inspection procedures or the extent of inspection.
Few alternatives are available to inspect the tank bottom for underside corrosion.
Commercially available inspection techniques include those based on magnetic-flux
exclusion (MFE) and automated ultrasonics. Both inspection techniques require that
the floor is free of dirt, sediment and corrosion products, and that it is dry. A
recommended minimum inspection would be an MFE inspection of all floor plates
with ultrasonic follow-up of suspect areas, vacuum-box testing of floor-plate welds
and dry magnetic particle or liquid penetrant inspection of the shell-to-bottom weld.
Again, future general corrosion and pitting rates, both topside and underside, are
estimated to evaluate the acceptability of the current bottom thickness.
Foundation. The tank-foundation inspection is one of the more controversial
sections of API 653. The controversy is based on the acceptance criteria for
differential shell and bottom settlement contained in Appendix B of API 653. Again,
API does not provide needed formulas for analyzing the level-measurement data
and calculating the differential settlement. The foundation analysis is based on the
results of work presented in two papers written in the early eighties.2,3 The
rationale for doing tank settlement analysis is to prevent overstressing the tank
shell, bottom or shell-to-bottom weld or causing failure or sinking of a floating roof
due to excessive shell ovalization. A complete settlement analysis requires entering
the tank and taking bottom-settlement measurements.
Engineering solutions to tank inspection findings. A potential consequence of doing
an API 653-tank inspection is dealing with a tank that doesnt comply with its
requirements. Some owners may be reluctant to incorporate API 653 into their tank
inspection program. Reluctance occurs due to the cost of potential repairs to bring a
tank into compliance or perceived liability of having an inspection report that
includes a noncompliance statement. Unfortunately, this approach is like sticking
ones head in the sand. It is always better to be aware of a potential problem and
the options for rectifying it, than to risk a failure. In addition, several states are
referencing API 653 in their tank regulatory requirements. Therefore, it cannot be

ignored in those locations. In addition, since API 653 is an industry-developed

document, ignoring its provisions would place an owner in a less defensible position
should a leak or more extensive failure occur.
A lesser known aspect of API 653 is that it permits flexibility in addressing out-ofcompliance inspection results. API 653 states that certain conditions are
unacceptable unless a more extensive analysis is done. Common deficiencies
associated with tank inspections are:
Product-height limitations based on 0.7 weld joint-efficiency factor or lower
strength material in the shell-thickness calculations or that resulting from thin shell
measurements.
Localized corroded areas in the shell that cant be repaired without taking the
tank out of service.
Excessive differential shell or bottom settlement.

Depending on the extent of the particular problem, all of the mentioned situations
can be addressed, and perhaps forgiven, by a more detailed-engineering analysis,
coupled with additional inspection. Often, this additional evaluation will cost less
than the repair option or fill-height limitation. The most common engineeringanalysis tools to address tank-shell deficiencies include:
Distinguish locations of thinned areas based on their proximity to vertical and
horizontal shell welds. In this way, the weld-joint efficiency applies to areas near
the welds. In addition, a distinction can be made between vertical welds, which
govern the wall thickness when joint efficiency is considered and horizontal welds.
Do thickness "averaging." With this approach, credit is taken for reinforcement
provided by thicker regions that are next to corroded regions of a tank shell.
Perform 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.
Do thickness calculations using the API 650 variable design-point method. This
iterative design approach uses a more accurate approximation of actual shell stress
and typically results in a smaller required shell thickness than the basic approach.
Perform a "design by analysis" as detailed in the ASME Code, Section VIII,
Division 2, Appendix 4. This approach categorizes the stress types at a particular
location (i. e., membrane, bending, local or general, peak) and assigns different
allowable stresses to the various categories. This method is especially useful in
evaluating severe but localized corrosion, such as in the lower part of the bottom
course. Also, it can be used to evaluate corrosion in the bottom annular plate area
and differential shell or bottom settlement.

These 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 based 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.
API 653 provides a rational basis to evaluate the structural integrity of existing,
aboveground, atmospheric-storage tanks. Since it is an industry-sponsored
document and is becoming a part of more state storage-tank regulatory
requirements, it will be increasingly difficult to ignore. Therefore, owner companies
should become familiar with its inspection and evaluation requirements, understand
the flexibility that is built into it and incorporate it into their tank inspection and

maintenance programs.
LITERATURE CITED
1. API Standard 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration and Reconstruction,
American Petroleum Institute, January 1991.
2. Malik, Z., J. Morton and C. Ruiz, "Ovalization of cylindrical tanks as a result of
foundation settlement," Journal of Strain Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1977.
3. Marr, W. A., J. A. Ramos and T. W. Lambe, "Criteria for settlement of tanks,"
ASCE, Vol. 108, No. GT8, August 1982.