Design and Field Comparison of Ground Improvement and Bored Piles for Large Diameter

Steel Water Tanks

Vijaya Bhushan Rao, Author, BAUER Spezialtiefbau GmbH (Dubai Branch), United Arab Emirates,
+971 (56) 545 0821, vijay.bhushan@baueruae.ae
Ali Semercioglu, Technical Engineer, BAUER Spezialtiefbau GmbH (Dubai Branch), United Arab
Emirates, +971 (56) 507 0815, ali.semercioglu@baueruae.ae
Jason Redgers, Contributor, BAUER Spezialtiefbau GmbH (Dubai Branch), United Arab Emirates,
+971 (56) 996 0403, Jason.Redgers@baueruae.ae

ABSTRACT

Large diameter steel water tanks with high storage capacities impart heavy loads deep into the ground,
generally requiring deep foundations to adequately support them. The use of ground improvement as a
sustainable and cost effective alternative is tempting but the design of the foundations for such heavily
loaded, thin-shelled structures have to meet several performance requirements such as bearing capacity,
limiting the specified total settlements, typically limiting the radial differential settlement to 13mm over
10m along the circumference and dishing settlement from edge to center of 1/120 as per standard API 650
Appendix B as well as the mitigation of liquefaction induced settlement risk. Any inadequacy in the soil
investigation, geotechnical design, or misrepresentation of stresses of the foundations may lead to
serviceability compromise or potentially catastrophic failures. Therefore, the selection of the foundation is
dependent on the availability of suitable ground report and the limitations imposed by operational
requirements. Two such case studies are evaluated and compared in this paper, with tank diameters ranging
from 41 to 106m in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, (KSA) which were founded on two types of soils and
supported on deep foundations i.e., stone columns and bored cast-in-situ piles.

Keywords: Steel water tanks, High storage, Ground Improvement, Settlements, Field Tests

INTRODUCTION

Storage tanks are not always built on the best sites and the sub-soil may not be able to resist heavy loads.
Most commonly, mixed bearing soils and fresh fills are encountered in the project sites. Such stratum below
tank foundations can cause differential settlements, offers maintenance challenges, and can lead to
catastrophic consequences. Accordingly, tanks are rested either on shallow improved ground with grade
beam, or ring beam or on deep foundations with piles connected to the slab. Generally, pile foundations are
adopted as the most suitable foundation type to support these tanks in difficult and sensitive grounds.
However, this may significantly impact the project’s cost and timeline depending on the performance
criteria and sub-soil conditions. While piling is the premiere and well-established solution for supporting
tanks in poor ground conditions, ground improvement can also be considered as a reliable alternative on
case-by-case basis. When the in-situ soil beneath the tank is a relatively homogeneous material, a uniform
settlement may occur, and the tanks may not undergo significant problems. However, it may cause damage
or distress at piping connections. If the sub-soil settles differentially, there will be sagging, circumferential
and tilting settlement. Sagging causes uneven settlement of tank bottom plate and may result in buckling of
tank bottom plate. Tilting settlement causes an increase in liquid level on one side and an increase in hoop
stress on the shell. Circumferential differential settlement also allows tank shell to settle in a non-planar
configuration inducing additional stresses in the tank shell. All such deformations effect the serviceability
condition of tanks. Tank Loads are fixed based on the fluid carried by the tank, appurtenances, and its self-
weight. Whereas many specifications provide limits on tank settlement, the most common specifications
such as American Petroleum Institute (API 650) provide guidelines and minimum requirements for tank
foundation deformations, which may differ according to the tank builder. The limits vary based on the type
of tank roof: fixed, floating or mixed of tanks. This paper covers 2 case histories of tanks supported on both
shallow and deep foundations and their performance verified by suitable field tests and interpretation of
test results

CASE STUDY 1 – TANKS AT TERMINAL AND PUMPING STATIONS

The project site located in Makkah province in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, KSA, where the site is split into
two distinct areas of a pumping station and a terminal station built as part of the proposed water transmission
system project. The two stations are situated about 3.2 km apart and therefore founded on 2 different soil
conditions. Whilst the Pumping station development consisted of building a steel storage water tank of 41m
diameter with a capacity of 25,000m3, the Terminal station consisted of a 50m diameter tank with a capacity
of 50,000 m3 along with associated structures that required ground improvement to support the structures.

Table 1. Settlement design criteria for steel storage tanks at Terminal and pumping stations
Size
Area Structure Loads Allowable Settlements
[Dimensions

Terminal 50 m Dia. & 26.25m Ht 253 kPa &

Tank 250mm at center of Tank
Station (50,000 m3 capacity) 318 kPa on Ring beam

Pumping 41 m Dia. & 20.75m Ht 225 kPa &

Tank 250mm at center of Tank
Station (25,000 m3 capacity) 245 kPa on Ring beam

SOIL CONDITIONS

Following are the representative borehole and pre-improvement Cone Penetration Tests, PreCPTs profile
at the location of 50m Diameter tank at the Terminal station location.

Figure 1. Sub soil profile from Borehole and CPTs at Terminal station
In addition to the available boreholes from the soil
investigation report undertaken by the client, additional pre-
improvement Cone Penetration Tests with pore pressure
measurement, PreCPTus were taken at the Terminal station to
make a detailed assessment of the soil conditions and to
correlate the boreholes and CPT test results. An analysis of the
soils using Ic, the Soil Behavior Type (after Robertson 2010),
showed that the soil conditions at the Terminal station
consisted of relatively weak and soft layers extending to 15m
depth, with alternating layers of loose to medium dense sands
and soft clays [in-situ compactness of very loose to medium
dense condition in general with SPT N in the order of 2~29 in
sands and Cone resistance, qc [MPa] measuring between 0.5
to 1.0 MPa in Clays).This layer is underlain by medium dense
to dense sands up to 20m depth before encountering refusal at
22/23m depth from Ground Level.
Figure 2. Borehole and PreCPT layout at Terminal station

Figure 3. Robertson Soil Behavior Type Index, SBT Ic Plots at Terminal station

Similarly, in addition to the available boreholes from the soil

report, additional preCPTU tests were taken in the 40m
diameter tank at the Pumping station.

Using the same assessment method on both stations (i.e., the

SBT Ic plots) showed weak soils extending up to 30m depth
with the top 10m depth consisting of alternating layers of
sands and very soft clays underlain by a mixture of silts,
sandy silts, and clayey silts as shown in the figure 5 and 6
below.

Figure 4. Borehole and PreCPT layout at Pumping Station

 Figure 5. Sub soil profile from Borehole and CPTs at Pumping station

Figure 6. Robertson Soil Behavior Type Index, SBT Ic Plots at Pumping station

The soil conditions at the Pumping station were relatively weak and soft with low cone resistance, qc [MPa]
values extending to deeper depths up to 30m from the ground level. The pre-improvement Cone Penetration
Test, PreCPTUs were terminated prior to refusal at 25m depth due to the shortage of extension rods, but
the available borehole logs showed the soil extended up to 45m depth before encountering bedrock. The
weaker soils consisted of deposits of soft clay underlain by the mixtures of silts and clays falling within the
depth of load influence under the 41m diameter tank and are therefore prone to very high and unacceptable
total and differential settlements rendering the ground improvement solution not applicable at this location.
FOUNDATION SOLUTIONS

Terminal station - Based on the encountered soil conditions at the Terminal station for the 50 m diameter
tank, ground improvement using stone columns was undertaken for 17m depth of treatment with an area
replacement ratio of 19% applied under the tank area and a denser grid arrangement applied under the 1.5m
wide concrete ring beam supporting the tank shell, with minimum 2 rows extending outside of the tank
edge as shown in figures below.

Figure 7. Details of stone column layout and concrete ring beam at 50m Diameter tank

Figure 8. Arrangement of stone columns under the tank and Ring beam location
The settlements estimated for the proposed design using stone columns was 350mm (> 250 mm allowable)
at the center of tank and 250 mm at the ring beam, but with controlled radial and dishing differential
settlements it was agreed to proceed. Further verification tests included two (2) numbers of Zone Load
Tests (ZLT) loaded up to 1.5 times of design load in the tank area (one test at tank center on 3x3m footing
size and another at the location of ring beam on 1.5 x 1.5m footing size) to monitor settlement behavior,
validate soil parameters and therefore verify the design assumptions. In addition to zone load tests, eight
(8) numbers of Plate Load Tests (PLT) of 1m diameter have been carried out on the top of columns to check
the workmanship, integrity, and stiffness of columns in accordance with German code DIN 18134:2012-04

The recorded settlement was 15.45mm against a predicted theoretical settlement of 17.10 mm in the tank,
and 4.33mm for the test undertaken on the ring bean against a predicted theoretical settlement of 6.86mm.
Thus, the design parameters were verified.

Pumping Station – Based on the weak and soft consistency of soil conditions presented from the soil
investigation, it was considered too ambitious to attempt ground improvement in this location and this
reverted to a traditional deep foundation solution. The piling solution lead to 138 numbers of 1000 mm
diameter piles upto 42.5m depth from ground level.

Figure 9. Pile layout and FEM 3D analysis details for 41m diameter Tank at Pumping station

The settlements estimated for the pile design was 70mm at the center of tank and 48mm at the tank edge
and a base slab was provided to connect the piles with pile cut-off level at 1m below ground level.
Therefore, piling solution was rendered best at the pumping station to avoid settlements.
CASE STUDY 2 – LARGE STEEL WATER TANKS 170,000 M3 CAPACITY

The scope of work consists of construction of three (3) numbers of large steel water tanks of 106m
diameter with storage capacity of 170,000 m3 at Tank farm and Pump station as part of the development
of a water transmission system between in the Eastern Region.

DESIGN CRITERIA FOR STEEL WATER TANKS

Diameter 106.00 m
Height 20.00 m
Width of Ring beam 1.50 m.
Allowable load bearing pressure 285 kPa.
Maximum allowable tank edge settlement shall be 100mm
Differential settlement 13 mm over 10.0 m along circumference
Dishing settlement from edge to center 1:120 as per API650
Factor of Safety during an earthquake FoS=1.2,
considering M=6 and PGA=0.15g at the ground surface.

Figure 10. General layout of three numbers of 106m diameter steel tanks

SOIL CONDITIONS

The general soil profile of the site presented as typically a granular sand of variable density, some silty sand
with some sandy gravels and underlain by hard silt/clay layers at lower depths. The thickness of those
quaternary deposits were investigated to depths of upto 50m by boreholes. Further Cone Penetration Tests
(CPTU) were undertaken in accordance with ASTM D5778 to correlate with the results from SPT “N”
values gathered from the boreholes in order to confirm and verify soil profile. Based on the collected data
the soil conditions appeared consistent across the site with similar soil profiles encountered under the three
(3) numbers of tanks. For the presentation only Tank 2 is selected.

Figure 11. Soil investigation works undertaken at Tank 2 highlighted

 Figure 12. Sub soil profile from Boreholes and CPTs at Tank 2

Although the soil investigation suggested that in-situ vibrocompaction compaction techniques would be
suitable, or even dynamic compaction, the client was insistent on vibroreplacement (stone columns) being
the only applicable method to reach the requirements. As such a stone column solution based on Priebe
(1995), resulted in a square grid of 2.8 x 2.8 m applied under the tank for a treatment depth of 8.5m with
800mm diameter stone columns, with four (4) radial rows applied on an equivalent dense grid of
approximately 2.45 x 2.45 m c/c under the ring beam. This design satisfied the performance requirements
to limit the post-construction total settlements to not exceed 100 mm at the tank edge and comply
differential settlement tolerances, and ensure factor of safety, FOS > 1.2 against liquefaction risk for the
design level seismic event.

Figure 13. Stone Column arrangement details and drawings at Tank 2

FOUNDATION PRESSURES AT RING BEAM

The maximum foundation pressures induced under the 1.5m wide concrete ring beam were estimated based
on eccentric loading conditions resulting in trapezoidal stresses. This was analyzed using both finite element
FEM modelling and traditional settlement analysis based on Boussinesq (1883) and Priebe (1995). It was
noted that the maximum load bearing pressures were developed on the inner edge of ring beam and these
stresses were considered in settlement calculations at the tank edge.

Figure 14. Calculated load bearing pressures induced under the concrete ring beam

Figure 15. Settlement calculations for stresses at the center and edge of tank 2

FIELD PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION TESTS

The settlements calculated for the proposed stone column design was 121mm at the center and 68.1mm (<
100mm allowable) at the tank edge. Field performance verification tests included one (1) number Zone
Load Test, ZLT undertaken at the center of tank No 2 for 165% of design load on a 3 x 3m footing size;
this was to monitor the settlement behavior and verify stone column design (i.e., the assumed soil and stone
column stiffness). Furthermore ten (10) numbers of Cone Penetration Tests, postCPTUs were taken in
between the stone columns to assess any increase in Cone resistance, qc MPa values as a result of
densification in the sands due to the vibratory compaction action during the stone column installation
process. The measured settlement was 4.66 mm for ZLT at the design load of 215 kPa, which was less than
predicted theoretical settlement of 8.65 mm. Furthermore, the CPTUs showed significant increase in the tip
resistance, qc MPa values in comparison to CPTUs taken prior to the works indicating the relative density
and bearing strength of soils has been increased within the treated depth.
The blue colored lines refer to PreCPTs and the brown colored charts refer to postCPTs plotted along with
their averages as shown in the Figure 16 below.

Figure 16. Zone Load Test and pre and post Cone Penetration Test Results
CONCLUSIONS

There is no universal best solution; depending on the site-specific soil conditions, shallow or deep
foundations can be designed to support steel storage tanks successfully. Ground improvement including
replacement and compaction techniques can be successfully applied with special additional efforts taken at
the tank edge to limit the settlements to acceptable values. Careful testing, field performance tests,
validation tests and suitable design would show success is possible. Thus, savings in time, money and
resources could be realized where the benefits of soil improvement (ie improvement of the ground, use of
ground bearing solutions) offered environmental benefits over the use of concrete, steel, suspended slabs,
and arisings removal offering a sustainable option. Such figures can be seen in the DFI / EFFC Carbon
Calculator.

REFERENCES

Priebe, H. J., 1995. The Design of Vibro replacement, published in Ground Engineering, December 1995

BS EN ISO 22476-12 (2009) Geotechnical investigation and testing – Field Testing: part 12: Mechanical
Cone Penetration Test, British Standards Institution, London.

DIN 18134: 2001-09. Determining the deformation and strength characteristics of soil by the plate-loading
test, September 2001

Lunne, T., and Christoffersen, H.P. 1983. Interpretation of cone penetrometer data for offshore sands.
Proceedings, 15th Annual OTC, OTC 4464: 181-188.

Robertson, P. K. 2010. “Estimating in situ state parameter in sandy soils from the CPT.” Proc., 2nd Int.
Symp. of the Cone Penetration Test, CPT ‘10, Omnipress Publishers, Madison, Wis.

American Petroleum Institute: API Standard 650: Welded Tanks for Oil Storage, 11th edn., Washington,
D.C., p. 445 (2011)