Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: I factor & API 650 Appendix E

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Ron, Robert,

        This assessment may may have been valid in the past; but today, with the
high level of environmental concern that exists, there are other factors to
consider as well as personal safety.

        Today, at least in Canada, rupturing an oil (or gasoline) tank that
contains $$thousands worth of oil could cost $$millions to clean up plus
$$millions more in fines and penalties.  As an example, I just recently finished
an upgrade to a small (60' span, one lane) private bridge that also carried an
8" oil pipeline across the stream.  In pre design meetings it was revealed that
the value of oil lost in a potential rupture was between $2,000 and $4,000,
while the cost of cleanup would be at least $2,000,000 and the applicable fines
would be another $2,000,000.  Nobody at the table was pushing for the minimum
design the codes would permit!

        In addition to the environmental considerations, if a gasoline tank were
to rupture you would have a considerable fire hazard to contend with.  You may
want to discuss this with your local fire marshal.

        If I were responsible for determining an importance factor I would want
to err on the safe side.

Respectfully submitted,

H. Daryl Richardson

Ron Hill wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Keep in mind that API 650 is used by oil companies that generally build
> tanks in remote areas away from the general public.  The owners want to get
> the cheapest tank for the money ( no different than anyone)  Most of the
> time the importance factor of 1.0 is sufficient.
>
> For new tanks that are to be located in areas that are near the public, this
> factor is increased.  I have also seen the increase in the use of retaining
> walls as a secondary containment.
>
> The problem becomes greater when we are asked to evaluate an existing tank
> that was once miles from the public but now homes or business may be located
> near by.  By common sense we now have a greater risk.  Using a higher
> importance factor now reduces the capacity of the tank and we must tell the
> owner that he must install an overflow nozzle at a lower elevation or build
> an expensive secondary containment.
>
> I think that it is your call and not unreasonable to increase the factor.
>
> Ronald A. Hill, P.E.
> HILL Consulting Engineering
> PO BOX 26525
> Birmingham, Alabama 35260 USA
> Phone: 205-823-4784
> FAX: 205-823-4145
> email: ronhill(--nospam--at)hillce.com
> http:\\www.hillce.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert M. Hanson [mailto:Bob(--nospam--at)KappaEngineers.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:43 PM
> To: seaint list
> Subject: I factor & API 650 Appendix E
>
> List,
>
> I would like to get an opinion or comment on standard practice in
> application of I factor when using API 650 code. I found the paper (1978)
> where the method was first presented to API as a proposed practice as an
> appendix P to API 650. The paper refers to the I at that time in reference
> to the Uniform Building Code which had a I of 1.5 for essential facilities
> only. This is a gasoline storage tank. To me being downwind of a leaky tank
> is a public health hazard and we should be using a I of 1.25.
>
> Robert M. Hanson, SE
> Kappa Engineers
> (310) 233-3800 x109
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********