Proceedings of the
International Conference on Foundation and Soft Ground
EngineeringChallenges in the Mekong Delta. Edited by Nguyen
Minh Hai, HoChiMinh City, June 5, 2013, pp. 3-17.
Page 1/15
INTRODUCTION
Large tanks storing liquids, e.g., Liquid Natural Gas,
LNG, typically have diameters ranging from about 60 m
through 90 m. The loads are large, often necessitating
placing the settlement-sensitive tanks on piled
foundations, which then invariably requires a very large
number of piles; up to and in excess of 1,000 piles. The
large tank diameters cause difference in response
between interior and perimeter, as well as between the
main pile group and smaller groups of piles located
adjacent to the tank to support pipe racks and similar
structures.
LNG tanks are often placed in coastal or near-shore
areas with soil profiles containing thick layers of
compressible soils, where site drainage and site
preparation requirements frequently make it necessary
to raise the area by placing a fill under and around the
tanks. The fill causes the ground to settle, which
develops drag load on the piles and downdrag
(settlement) for the piled foundation. Depending on pile
spacing, the drag load developing for the interior piles
may be quite different to that for perimeter piles and
piles outside or away from the tank.
Well-documented case histories reporting observations
on wide foundations are scarce. Only a handful are
available that deal with large tank foundations and,
specifically, include results of settlement measurements
across the tank footprint. This paper presents analyses
of a few available case histories, verifying the use of
conventional analytical methods for design that con-
Page 2/15
Page 3/15
YEARS
1950
0
1955
YEARS
1965
1960
10
30
40
50
South Side
1960 1965
North Side
Center
Center
Furnaces
30
40
50
South Side
60
70
1955
20
SETTLEMENT (mm)
SETTLEMENT (mm)
70
1953
10
20
60
1951
North Side
Center
2nd from South Side
80
Fig. 2 Settlements versus time in linear and logarithmic axes (Data from Golder and Osler 1968)
1970
Page 4/15
The figure also shows a settlement curve backcalculated for the center line of the piled raft foundation
using the so-calibrated soil parameters. The settlements
calculated for the center line indicate that the
differential settlement between the center and the corner
would have been about 200 mm over 40 m, about 1:200.
However, Goossens and VanImpe (1991) reported no
sign of distress for the silo structure.
Page 5/15
STRESS (KPa)
Actual and
approximated
loading and
unloading
sequence
100
50
0
0
50
50
100
150
200
250
300
250
300
150
200
MEASURED
START UNLOADING
-10
50
-5
DEPTH (m)
10
GW
"Interbedded sand and clay" m = 450, = 1,900 kg/m
100
AT FULL LOAD
SETTLEMENT (mm)
30 m
150
3
200
FINISHED UNLOADING
FITTED
IF NO UNLOADING
3
250
15
20
SETTLEMENT (mm)
100
DAYS
1,000
100
150
200
Period with
constant load
250
Page 6/15
STRESS (KPa)
150
50
Actual and
approximated
load and
unloading
sequence
100
48 m
TANK TK-3000
TANK TK-3001
40
38 m
50
30
Hydrotest Level; 30 m
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
50
100
150
200
250
300
50
100
10
1,200 KN
1,200 KN
255 KPa at test; 175 KPa
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
AT FULL LOAD
SETTLEMENT (mm)
150
FINISHED
UNLOADING
START
UNLOADING
Measured
and Fitted at
Perimeter
If no unloading
#2
-10
14m
16m
Calculated
at Center
-20
#3
#4
#5
20
If no unloading
550
and consolidation.
The figure also includes the
calculated settlement for the center of the tank (which
was not measured) indicating a differential settlement
between the tank and the center of about 200 mm.
The hydrotest served as a preloading of the soil. The
settlements during later use of the tank for oil storage
can be expected to follow the reloading moduli of the
soil determined from the unloading of the tank. The
settlement of the tank in actual use was not monitored.
However, modeling of the re-filling of the tank to full
height using the parameters established in the modeling
of the hydrotest results indicates that the settlement
would have been about 30 mm along the perimeter and
about 60 mm at the tank center.
-30
-40
45
-50
-20
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Page 7/15
10
20
30
DEPTH (m)
Before Tamping
5
After Tamping
6
mi
mir
m
mr
cv
=
=
=
=
=
Page 8/15
20
30
40
50
10
20
30
40
Modulus Number, m
0
50
BEFORE
AFTER
10
qt -- unfiltered
qt -- unfiltered
qt -- filtered
qt -- filtered
qt -- adjusted
12
12
100
200
300
400
500
10
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
qt --- adjusted
10
Before
Tamping
After
Tamping
12
Fig. 11 Cone stress values before and after dynamic consolidation (left two diagrams) and
Janbu modulus numbers (right diagram) determined from the cone stress values before and
after tamping (Data from Leira Velasco and Lobato Kropnick 2007)
Page 9/15
20
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
20
15
10
5
0
120
50
100
DAYS (--)
DAYS (--)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
200
250
300
50
100
200
250
300
150
Calculated for
tank perimeter
200
Tank
perimeter
400
Edge
of Fill
600
Center
800
1,000
SETTLEMENT (mm)
200
SETTLEMENT (mm)
150
DAYS (--)
DAYS (--)
400
Tank perimeter
800
1,000
1,200
1,200
Edge of Fill
Tank Center
1,400
1,400
Fig. 12 Preloading schedule and settlement vs. time for Tanks TK3000 and TK3001
-25
25
50
75
100
-25
125
24 days
200
30 days
400
35 days
108 days
600
89 days
800
1,000
SETTLEMENT (mm)
200
25
50
75
100
125
400
600
25 days
800
50 days
1,000
1,200
1,200
1,400
1,400
290 days
210 days
Fig. 13 Preloading settlements along a diameter for Tanks TK-3000 and TK3001
20
15
10
5
0
10
100
1,000
20
15
10
5
0
10
100
1,000
DAYS (--)
DAYS (--)
10
DAYS (--)
100
1,000
10
100
1,000
200
Tank
perimeter
Edge of
Fill
400
600
800
1,000
Center
55 days
End of
Consolidation
1,200
SETTLEMENT (mm)
SETTLEMENT (mm)
SETTLEMENT (mm)
400
600
1,000
1,200
Tank
perimeter
800
1,400
120 days
?
End of
Consolidation
Edge of Fill
Tank Center
Page 10/15
30
20
20
10
15
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
20
25
30
DAYS (--)
DAYS (--)
0
10
15
10
Calculated Perimeter
Measured perimeter
40
Measured center
60
Calculated center
80
Norht-South
SETTLEMENT (mm)
20
Pile 16
-5
Pile 11
100
-10
Pile 7
120
-15
-20
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
East-West
37.6 m diameter
liquid storage tank
20
15
10
5
10
15
20
25
30
SETTLEMENT (mm)
10
15
Pile 7
20
Pile 11
Pile 16
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SETTLEMENT (mm)
0
10
20
Best-fit point
30
40
the
Page 11/15
84 m
Pile
Shortening
2,500
Pile
Head
c-ult
Offset Limit
2,300 KN
2,000
LOAD (KN)
Typical for a coastal LNG site, the soil at the tank site is
assumed to consist of 25 m of normally consolidated
moderately compressible clay on 10 m of dense sand
followed by 25 m of moderately compressible, slightly
preconsolidated clay on very dense gravel at 60 m
depth. The groundwater table lies at a 2.0 m depth. An
upward water gradient exists in the clay, corresponding
to a 2.0 m artesian head (2.0 m above ground) in the
sand. The pore pressure distribution in the lower clay
layer is hydrostatic. To prepare the site for construction,
a 1.0 m fill will be placed over a large area of the site.
Pile Toe
Mvmnt vs.
Load at Toe
1,500
1,000
Pile
Shaft
vs Mvmnt
at Head
c-ult
500
0
0
Pile Toe unaffected
by residual load
10
15
20
25
30
MOVEMENT (mm)
Page 12/15
CLAY
the soil area per pile (about 4.0 m2). For the subject
case, fully mobilized shaft resistance for a single pile is
about 2.5 times larger than the in-between weight. In
contrast, the piles along the tank perimeter will have
drag loads equivalent to fully mobilized shaft resistance.
SAND
LOAD (KN)
0
Qd
5
Test
Condition
DEPTH (m)
10
15
20
25
Test at
Long-term
Condition
30
35
CLAY
40
Page 13/15
LOAD (KN)
0
1,000
SETTLEMENT (mm)
2,000
3,000
4,000
25
50
75
100
125
Qd
Pile
Long-term
10
150
FILL
10
CLAY
Soil
Neutral Plane
20
30
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
20
"q"
40
SAND
30
"z"
CLAY
40
50
50
60
60
GRAVEL
70
70
10
15
20
25
30
TIME (years)
35
25
20
15
10
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
DAYS
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
20
40
SETTLEMENT (mm)
SETTLEMENT (mm)
HYDRO TEST
Only Fill;
Away from the tank
100
Tank Perimeter
200
300
Tank Center
400
60
80
500
Fig. 24
CONCLUSIONS
It should be noted that the settlement calculations do not
account for the fact that the downdrag, i.e., settlement
due to the causes other than the pile load, will affect the
perimeter piles more than the center piles, thus,
offsetting to some degree the differential settlement
between the perimeter and the center tank area due to
the load from the tank.
Page 14/15
REFERENCES
Badellas, A., Savvaidis, P. and Tsotos, S., 1988.
Settlement measurement of a liquid storage tank
founded on 112 long bored piles.
Second
International Conference on Field Measurements
in Geomechanics, Kobe, Japan, Balkema
Rotterdam, pp. 435-442.
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, CFEM,
1992. Third Edition. Canadian Geotechnical
Society, BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, 512 p.
El Far, A. and Davie, J., 2008. Tank settlement due to
highly plastic clays. Sixth Int. Conf. on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, S. Prakash,
Ed., MI Univ., August 12 16, 2008, Arlington,
Virginia, 5 p.
Fellenius, B.H., 1984. Negative skin friction and
settlement of piles. Proceedings of the Second Int.
Seminar, Nanyang Technological Institute,
Singapore, 18 p.
Fellenius, B.H., 1988. Unified design of piles and pile
groups. TRB Washington, Record 1169, pp. 75-82.
Fellenius, B.H., 2004.
Unified design of piled
foundations with emphasis on settlement analysis.
Geo-TRANS Conf., Los Angeles, July 27-30,
2004, J.A. DiMaggio and M.H. Hussein, Eds.,
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication, GSP 125,
pp. 253-275.
Fellenius, B.H., 2006.
Results from long-term
measurement in piles of drag load and downdrag.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 43(4) 409-430.
Page 15/15