Research Article

Design, analysis and fabrication of firewater storage tank

H. K. Sachidananda1 · Shalvi Dubey1 · M. Veera Kumar1

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Abstract
This research article focuses on the design, fabrication and analysis of firewater storage tank in order to assess tank
integrity and maintaining compliance with industry and regulatory standards. The storage tank is considered of fixed
cone roof firewater tank considering carbon steel as the material of the tank. The analysis has been carried out using
CFD and finite element analysis. The results of the study shows that the designed tank is safe from the failure mode and
the seismic energy transferred and accumulated in the structure.

Keywords Firewater tank · ANSYS · Design · Fabrication

List of symbols t Top shell core thickness (mm)

td Design shell thickness (mm) H2 Height of the tank (m)
tt Hydrostatic test shell thickness (mm) Pw Wind pressure (MPa)
D Nominal tank diameter (m) V Wind speed
G Design specific gravity of liquid Pe Design vacuum pressure
CA Corrosion allowance (mm) = 1.50 Ed Young’s modulus at design temperature and
Sd Maximum allowable stress (MPa) ambient temperature (MPa)
St Maximum allowable stress for hydrostatic Dv Design vacuum pressure (MPa)
condition (MPa) CF Correction factor for velocity and vacuum
Di Inside diameter of tank (m) HL Maximum height of unstiffened shell (m)
Ht Hydrotest liquid level (m) Ea Young’s modulus at ambient temperature
HL Design liquid level (m) Av Vertical seismic coefficient
Vn Maximum wind speed (km/h) µ Friction coefficient for tank sliding
Sp Peak ground acceleration for seismic Ge Effective specific gravity
analysis = 0.30 Wi Effective impulsive weight
I Importance factor = 1.25 Wp Weight of tank contact (N)
Lf Minimum roof live load (MPa) Xi Center of action (m)
Ys Minimum yield stress (MPa) Xc Center of attraction (m)
Uts Ultimate tensile stress (MPa) Xs Height of the bottom of the shell to shell CG
E Modulus of elasticity (GPa) (m)
Cf Yield stress reduction factor Wr Total weight of the roof framing (N)
Fy Minimum yield stress (MPa) Xr Height from top of shell to roof CG (m)
W1 Force in annular plate (N) J Anchorage ratio
tar Minimum thickness without corrosion (mm) Wrs Roof loading acting on the shell per meter
tba Minimum thickness of annular plate (mm) (N/m)

* H. K. Sachidananda, sachidananda6@gmail.com; Shalvi Dubey, shalvidubey@gmail.com; M. Veera Kumar, veerakumar16@gmail.com

| 1Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering and IT, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Dubai Campus, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates.

SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:81 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0071-2

Received: 11 October 2018 / Accepted: 19 November 2018 / Published online: 4 December 2018

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Article SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:81 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0071-2

Wtr Transposed width of each shell course (mm) water use. Also, they reviewed the health risk of firewater
W Actual width of shell course (mm) to firefighters and also to protect environment from pollu-
tuniform Corroded thickness of top shell (mm) tion. Aware and Mathada [2] have studied cylindrical liquid
tactual Ordered thickness of each shell (mm) storage tank using finite modeling techniques. They stud-
Ht Height of transposed width (mm) ied the seismic performance of various heights elevated
Hf Height of product level (mm) water tanks using STAAD-PRO software, and they con-
H Maximum design liquid level (m) cluded that their study will be useful for civil engineers to
Ci Coefficient of impulsive period understand the effects of various heights water tank. Kro-
tu Average thickness of shell (mm) nowitt [3] has suggested an insulated water storage tank
Ti Impulsive natural period, s made of plastic along with associated piping and series
Sp Peak ground acceleration of valves which is directly connected to the regular water
Ri Response reduction factor supply which can be bypassed when not in use. Ali [4] has
Q Scaling factor studied procedures for designing and assessing the fire-
Fa and FV Site coefficient water storage tank. They analyzed the procedure used in
N Number of bolt gravel pad foundation of firewater storage tank. They rec-
Pf Failure pressure, MPa ommended conducting regular maintenance and install-
MW Wind moment (N-m) ing instruments to monitor the settlement of the sand on
Fba Bearing pressure (MPa) which firewater storage tank is constructed. Palmer [5] has
Dbo Annular bottom plate diameter studied stresses in storage tanks. According to them, the
Wo Operating weight (N) settlement around the circumference of the foundation
tbr Annular bottom plate thickness (mm) below the firewater storage tank can cause stressing and
tb Annular bottom plate thickness (mm) distortion resulting in deflections and stresses in the shell
nc Effective width of the gusset (mm) and the primary wind girder.
tcr Thickness of chair plate In this research paper, design and analysis of fixed cone
Nb Projection in chair plate roof firewater tank has been studied. The analysis of this
C Spacing between the gussets tank has been performed using ANSYS static structural and
P Bolt load on gusset CFD workbench for stress and pressure analysis, respec-
f Bolt hole diameter (mm) tively, and validated. This analysis has been carried out for
Ms Seismic overturning moment firewater tank considering steel, concrete and structural
Wi Effective impulsive weight of liquid (N) steel material.
Ws Weight supported by shell (N)

2 Methodology
1 Introduction
The firewater storage tank considered in this work is fixed
Storage tanks are used to store water, liquid petroleum, cone roof tank. The material considered is carbon steel for
petroleum products and similar liquids. These tanks are the various parts such as shell courses, the roof plates, bot-
designed as crack-free structures to eliminate any leak- tom and annular plates, wind girders and anchor bolts.
age. Oil storage tanks are susceptible to fire as it contains
various hydrocarbons in it. Therefore, firewater tanks are
installed in industries in case of emergency. The common 3 Standards and specifications
materials used to construct firewater storage tanks are
carbon steel, structural steel and concrete. Reservoir is a American petroleum institute (API) 650 [6] This standard
common term applied to liquid storage structure and it establishes minimum requirements for material, design,
can be below or above the ground level. Reservoirs below fabrication, erection and inspection for vertical, cylindri-
the ground level are normally built to store large quan- cal, aboveground, closed- and open-top, welded storage
tities of water, whereas those of overhead type are built tanks in various sizes and capacities for internal pressures
for direct distribution by gravity flow and are usually of approximating atmospheric pressure, but a higher inter-
smaller capacity. Based on firewater tank, some of the lit- nal pressure is permitted when additional requirements
erature reviews are as follows. are met. This standard applies only to tanks whose entire
Scholz [1] has studied firewater storage, treatment, bottom is uniformly supported and to tanks in non-refrig-
recycling and management. They reviewed firewater erated service that have a maximum design temperature
management and recycling of firewater in order to reduce of 93 °C (200 °F) or less.

Vol:.(1234567890)
SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:81 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0071-2 Research Article

National fire protection association (NFPA) 22 [7] This capacity = 1543 m3, stored capacity = 1473 m3, corrosion
standard provides requirements for the design, construc- allowance (CA) for the shell, roof and bottom is 1.50 mm,
tion, installation and maintenance of tanks and accessory radiography for shell as per API 650 CL 8.1.2, maximum
equipment that supply water for private fire protection. wind speed Vn = 190 km/h, peak ground acceleration for
Coverage includes provisions for: (1) gravity tanks, suction seismic analysis Sp = 0.30, importance factor I = 1.25 and
tanks, pressure tanks and embankment-supported coated minimum roof live load Lf = 0.0012 MPa.
fabric suction tanks, (2) towers, (3) foundations, (4) pipe
connections and fittings, (5) valve enclosures, (6) tank fill-
ing and (7) protection against freezing. 4 Material specifications (A36)
American water works association (AWWA) D100 [8] The and allowable stresses
purpose of this standard is to provide guidance to facilitate
the design, manufacture and procurement of welded car- 4.1 For bottom shell courses and balance shell
bon steel tanks for the storage of water. This standard does courses (As per A36) for shell design condition
not cover all details of design and construction because of
the large variety of sizes and shapes of tanks. Minimum yield stress (Ys) = 250 MPa, ultimate tensile stress
The main method used for determining the shell thick- (Uts) = 400 MPa, maximum allowable stress (Sd) = 160 MPa,
ness of the liquid storage tanks designed is in conform- modulus of elasticity (E) = 200 GPa, yield stress reduction
ance with API standard 650 is the one-foot method which factor (Cf ) = 6.40 and hydrotest temperature is taken as
is the most effective method for tanks with a smaller 17 °C (Table 1).
diameter.
The thickness of the cylindrical shell using one-foot 4.2 For bottom shell courses and balance shell
method can be estimated as follows: courses (As per A36) for shell hydrostatic
4.9D(H − 0.3)G
condition
td = + CA (1)
Sd
Minimum yield stress (Ys) = 250 MPa, ultimate tensile
stress (Uts) = 400 MPa and maximum allowable stress
4.9D(H − 0.3)
tt = (2) (St) = 171 MPa (Fig. 1, Tables 2, 3).
St

where td = design shell thickness (mm), tt = hydrostatic 4.3 Annular plate

test shell thickness (mm), D = normal tank diameter (m),
H = design liquid level (m), G = design specific gravity of liq- Material for the annular plate is selected as per A36 (Group
uid to be stored, CA = corrosion allowance (mm), Sd = allow- III), minimum yield stress (Fy) = 250 MPa. Maximum design
able stress for design condition (MPa), St = allowable stress liquid level (H) = 20 m, force in annular plate (Wl) due to
for the hydrostatic test condition (MPa) and the minimum liquid as per C1.5.11.2 = 19,389 N/m, product stress in first
thickness of shell as per API 650 Cl.5.6.1.1 = 5.00 mm. shell course as per C1.5.5.3 = 115.04 MPa, hydrostatic test
The cylindrical shell designed for the tank comprises stress in first shell course as per C1.5.5.3 = 93.47 MPa, mini-
of five shell courses, the roof plate, the bottom plate and mum thickness without corrosion allowance (tar) = 6 mm,
the annular plate. The details of the specifications are as minimum thickness as per C1.5.11.2 (tar) = 4.65 mm, cor-
follows: rosion allowance for annular plate (CA) = 1.50 mm. There-
Type of roof used is cone roof, contained fluid is firewa- fore, tar + CA = 7.50 mm, provided thickness of annular
ter, specific gravity G of the fluid is 1, operating pressure is plate (tba) = 8 mm, mean diameter D = 12.508 m, minimum
atmospheric (1.01325 bar), operating temperature = 65 °C, annular bottom plate width inside of shell = 600 mm, lap
design temperature = 0° minimum and maximum 85 °C, of bottom annular plate = 50 mm, minimum required
inside diameter of tank (uncorroded), Di = 12.50 m, tank radial width = 708 mm, required annular bottom plate
height up to top of curb angle Ht = 12.5 m, design liquid width = 384.60 mm and provided width of annular
level Hl = 12.5 m, tank filling height Hf = 12 m, nominal plate = 720 mm.

Table 1  Maximum allowable stress for bottom shell course (design condition) (Sd should be the smallest of A, B and C.)
A B C

Sd = 32 Cf Ys = 1066.67 MPa Sd = 25 Uts = 160 MPa Sd = (API 650) = 160 MPa

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Article SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:81 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0071-2

Fig. 1  Firewater tank elevation and shell courses

4.4 Bottom plate This thickness is not practical and hence supported

cone roof is considered for which minimum roof plate
Corrosion allowance for bottom plate thickness considered is 8 mm.
(CA) = 1.50 mm, minimum required thickness as per
C1.5.4.1 = 6 mm + CA = 7.50 mm, provided thickness of 4.6 Intermediate wind girders (API‑650 C1.5.9.7
bottom plate = 8 mm and resisting downward force due and M.6)
to bottom plate corroded weight = 51.03 kg/m3.
The tank nominal diameter (D) = 12.508 m, corrosion allow-
4.5 Roof plate ance for the shell (CA) = 1.50 mm, top shell course thickness
corroded t = 4.50 mm, height of tank including free board
Type of roof used is cone roof and the roof slope/ (H2) = 12.50 m, maximum wind velocity (Vm) = 190 km/h,
angle = 4.76°, nominal diameter of tank D = 12.508 m, cor- design wind speed as per 5.2.1 = 1.2 V = 228 km/h,
rosion allowance for roof plate (CA) = 1.50 mm and the w i n d p r e s s u r e ( Pw) o n c y l i n d r i c a l p a r t =
V V
load considered is 0.002171 MPa. 0.86 190 190
× 1000 = 1238.40 mN2 , design vacuum pressure
The minimum thickness (C1.5.10.5.1) for self-supporting (Pe) = 0.00 N/m2, total external pressure (Pw + Pe) = 1238.40 N/
cone roof is calculated as given in equation below. m2, design temperature (T) = 85 °C, Young’s modulus at
[( )( )0.5 ] design temperature and ambient temperature Ed = 200 GPa,
D T
+ CA = 32.67 mm (3) design vacuum (Dv) = 0.000 MPa, the vacuum already con-
4.8 sin 4.76 2.2
sidered as per C1.5.9.7.1.1 = 0.00024 MPa, correction factor
(CF) for velocity and vacuum = 0.720, maximum height (H1)
of unstiffened shell in corroded condition (C1.5.9.7.1)

Table 2  Maximum allowable stress for bottom shell course (hydrostatic test condition) (St should be the smallest of A, B and C.)
A B C

St = 43 Cf Ys = 1200 MPa St = 73 Uts = 171.43 MPa St = (API 650) = 171 MPa

Vol:.(1234567890)
SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:81 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0071-2 Research Article

Table 4  Thickness of each course shell and transposed width

Remark

Tp > Tr
Tp > Tr
T p > Tr
T p > Tr
T p > Tr
Shell course no. Course width (m) tactual (m) Wtr (m)

1 2.50 6.50 0.997

Thickness required is less Thickness pro-

2 2.50 4.50 2.500

vided (mm)
3 2.50 4.50 2.500
4 2.50 4.50 2.500
5 2.50 4.50 2.500

8
6
6
6
6
than td or tt (mm)

√
t3 Ed
= 9.47 × = 12.772 m and transposed width of
d3
× Ea √
5
tuniform
each shell course C1.5.9.7.2 Wtr = W × where
6.17
5.22
4.26
3.30
2.34

t5 actual

W = actual width of shell course (mm), tuniform = corroded

thickness of top shell = 4.5 mm and tactual = ordered thick-
Required thick-
ness (tt) (mm)

ness of each shell course (mm) (Table 4).

Since the height of transformed shell (Ht) is equal to the
sum of the transposed width of the courses and since H1
4.37
3.48
2.58
1.68
0.79

is less than Ht, intermediate wind girder is required as per

CL.5.9.7.3. So number of wind girders required will be
H (required

equal to one. Therefore, distance between IWG and top

height)

angle H 1 = ( 5.50) m, required modulus of section

12.50
10.00
7.50
5.00
2.50

2
D 2 H1 V
(Z) = 17
× 190
= 50.60 cm3 and the provided modu-
lus of section = 97.89 cm3.
Ht (required
Hydrotest

height)

12.50
10.00
7.50
5.00
2.50

4.7 Seismic analysis (API 650)

Table 3  Thickness of shell courses (Tp = thickness provided and Tr = thickness required)

Height of product level (HF) = 12 m, ratio D/H = 1.042, ratio

Required thick-
ness (td) (mm)

H/D = 0.959, coefficient of impulsive period (Ci) = 6.14,

average thickness of shell (uncorroded) tu = 6.40 mm and
impulsive natural period (as per C1E4.51.1) is calculated
6.17
5.22
4.26
3.30
2.34

as follows:

Ci H𝜌0.5
H (provoided

Ti = = 0.163 s (4)
thickness)

t 0.5
20000.5 Du0.5 E 0.5
12.50
10.00
7.50
5.00
2.50

Similarly, peak ground acceleration (Sp) = 0.340, response

reduction factor (Ri) = 3 and scaling factor q = 1, S1 = 0.260
Ho (required

and S = 8. The site coefficient Fa and Fv as per table E-1, E-2

height)
Course width Design

is considered as 1 and 1.5, impulsive horizon seismic coef-

12.50
10.00
7.50
5.00
2.50

ficient (Ai) is calculated using 2.5 × Q × Fa × Sp × RI = 0.283,

vertical seismic coefficient (Av) = 0.1190, convective (slosh-
ing) period (Tc) is calculated using TC = 1.8KS D0.5 as per
C1.E.4.5.2-a = 3.6827 Sec, Ks = √ 0.578 ) = 0.5785, K = 1.5,
(mm)

2500
2500
2500
2500
2500

(
3.68H
tanh D

Tl = 8 s, Ts = 0.4588 s, friction coefficient for tank sliding

µ = 0.40, convective horizontal seismic coefficient for
Course no.

Tc < 4 s, effective specific gravity (Ge) = G(1 − 0.4Av) = 0.95

and effective impulsive weight of liquid as per E6.1.1 is
1
2
3
4
5

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Article SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:81 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0071-2

And the condition is maximum shell compression

[ ]
calculated using Wi = 1 − 0.218 DH Wp where Wp is the
should be less than allowable shell compression (Tables 5,
weight of tank content = 14,445,195 N, but D/H < 1.333 as 6).
per E.6.6.6. Similarly, the center of action for ringwall foun-
d at i [o n a s p e r ] E 6 . 1 . 2 . 1 i s c a l c u l ate d u s i n g 4.8 Anchor bolt design
Xi = 0.5 − 0.094 DH H = 4.824 m, effective convective
weight
[ of liquid (W
( c) as )]
per E6.1.1 is calculated using The number of anchor bolt used N = 20 and the material
D H
Wc = 0.23 H tanh 3.67 D Wp = 345,699 N, center of for the bolt considered is cast iron and the yield stress of
attraction (Xc) for [
ringwall foundation is calculated as ]
per anchor bolt (Fy) is considered as 250 MPa. The failure pres-
( ) sure (Pf ) of(the bolt(is calculated))
using the following equa-
E 6 . 1 . 2 . 1 Xc = 1 − cosh 3.67 H − 1
( ) H tion Pf = 1.6P − 0.000746×DLR where DLR is the dead
D H H
3.67 D Sinh 3.67 D D

= 8.788 m, the seismic overturning moment (MS) at the load of shell other than roof (corroded), dead load includ-
b a s e o f t h e t a n k f o r r i n(g w a l l c o n)d i t i o n ing roof (corroded) and dead load other than roof. The
[ (
MS = Ai Wi Xi + WS XS + Wr Xr
)]2 [ (
+ Ac Wc Xc
)]2 0.5
= 1 [d e s i g n p r e2 s s u r e] is calculated using
[((P − 0.8th) × D × 785 ] 1 and the test pressure
− W
6,062,990 N-m, shear force due }to seismic Pt − 0.8th × D[( × 785 − W1 and)the failure pressure is
) 2
{ ( ( )2 0.5
calculated using[ 1.5 × Pf − 0.08th × D ] × 785 − W3 and
)2 2
]
FS = Ai Wi + Ws + Wr + Wf + (Ac Wc =3,315,745N,
4M
Anchorage ratio (J) = D2 (W (1−0.4AV )+Ws M
where the wind load is PWR × D2 × 785 + DW − W2 and the seis-
a −0.4Wint )
[( ) )]
t 4MS
mic load is calculated using . Also,
[ ] (
Ws
Wt = 𝜋D + Wrs and roof loading acting on shell (Wrs = 𝜋Dr )
W
D
− W2 1 − 0.4Av
d e s i g n p re s s u re + w i n d i s c a[l c u l]a t e d u s i n g
√
and Wa = 99 × ta Fy Ge H , Wint = 0.0 N/m. 4M
0.4P + PWR − 0.08th × D2 × 785 + DW − W1 and the
[( ) ]
The maximum shell compression for mechanically
anchored tank design pressure + seismic[ is ] calculated using
4M
(0.4P − 0.08th) × D2 × 785 + D S − W2 1 − 0.4Av and
[ ] ( )
( ( ) 1.273Mrw ) 1
(5) [the frangibility2 pressure is calculated using
𝜎C = Wt 1 + 0.4Av + 2
×
D 1000t s
(3PF − 0.08th) × D × 785 − W3.
]

And the allowable shell compression (Fc) is calculated

using 4.9 Design of annular bottom plate
GHD2 The bearing pressure (Fbe) operating condition is calcu-
(6)
t2 4W
lated using 𝜋D20 where Dbo is the annular bottom plate
bo

Table 5  Dynamic hoop tensile Firewater tank Y (m) Ni (N/mm) Nc (N/mm) Nh (N/mm) σt (MPa) Allowable σt (MPa) Result
stresses due to seismic motion
of liquid Shell course 1 12 131.06 1.17 717.08 134.38 – OK
Shell course 2 9.5 123.71 1.64 563.86 156.68 212.80 OK
Shell course 3 7 105.86 3.04 410.64 – 212.80 OK
Shell course 4 4.5 77.50 6.15 257.41 – 212.80 OK
Shell course 5 2 – 12.76 104.19 32.61 212.80 OK

Table 6  Dynamic hoop stress Firewater tank Y (m) Ni (N/mm) Nc (N/mm) Nh (N/mm) σt (MPa) Allowable σt (MPa) Result
for D/H < 1.33
Shell course 1 12 115.10 1.17 717.08 132.37 – OK
Shell course 2 9.5 115.10 1.64 563.86 – – OK
Shell course 3 7 108.13 3.04 410.64 – 212.80 OK
Shell course 4 4.5 – 6.15 257.41 77.18 212.80 OK
Shell course 5 2 44.04 12.76 104.19 33.71 212.80 OK

Vol:.(1234567890)
SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:81 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0071-2 Research Article

Fig. 2  Main steps for CFD analysis

outer diameter and Wo is the operating weight. The

required
[ annular
√ bottom
] plate thickness (tbr) is calculated
fbe
using Np × t
where t­ b is the annular bottom plate
b
thickness.

Table 7  Mesh description

Area firewater tank

Mesh type Tetrahedron mesh

Scale factor 1
Nodes 17,408
Elements 15,075 Fig. 4  Graph of iteration/time step

4.10 Design of vertical gusset

[The( effective)]
cross section of the gusset is calculated using
tv nc − 0.25 where tv is the thickness of the gusset and
the radius of gyration of the gusset is calculated using
0.289tv and the column( 2 ) formula as per AISI is given as
P L
2a
< 17000 − 0.485 r2
where P/2a is the minimum bolt
load on the gusset.

4.11 Design of anchor bolt chair plate

[The required ]0.5 thickness of chair plate tcr = CA+

PC
4Sb (Nb −f )
where Nb is the projection on chair plate, C is
the spacing between the gusset, P is the bolt load on gus-
set and f is the bolt hole diameter.
Fig. 3  Meshing of geometry

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Article SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:81 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0071-2

Fig. 5  a Velocity contour and velocity at the inlet. b Path lines of the tank. c CFD flow analysis of fixed roof tank. d Contours of velocity mag-
nitude of fixed cone roof tank and e path lines by static pressure of fixed cone roof tank

5 Results and analysis of liquid by method of mathematical modeling, numeri-

cal method and software tools. In this research work, the
5.1 Computational fluid dynamic analysis calculations and design considerations of the wind tunnel
using the solid work software as well as ANSYS 15.0 work-
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a branch of fluid bench are used. The different steps for CFD analysis can be
mechanics that uses numerical analysis to solve and ana- achieved as shown in Fig. 2. ANSYS software was utilized
lyze fluid flow problem. CFD analysis has been used to for meshing of the geometry. Appropriate parameters for
analyze the fluid flow in case of firewater storage tank. the cross section have been chosen to obtain geometry
CFD analysis gives a subjective and quantitative forecast and state of the model.

Vol:.(1234567890)
SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:81 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0071-2 Research Article

The firewater storage tank has been mapped meshed, magnitudes, and the obtained results were obtained and
and then the analysis to the solution stage using the fluent observed. For this research work, the calculations and
module of ANSYS 15.0 has been performed [9]. The mesh design considerations of the tank have been completed
description, mesh type, scale factor and the number of ele- using solid works as well as ANSYS 15 workbench soft-
ments used to construct firewater tank have been shown ware and the material used is carbon steel. Figure 6 shows
in Table 7, and the corresponding meshing of geometry is the model of the firewater storage tank constructed using
as shown in Fig. 3. ANSYS. The details of the model are as shown in Table 8.
The solution is obtained using an iterative approach in A static structural analysis was carried on a tank with a
fluent solver 15.0. This method allows the software to do load of 5000 N by considering fixed support as the base. In
iterations till the expected converging criteria are defined order to obtain the geometry, mapped meshing has been
and the corresponding graph of iterations is as shown in performed using ANSYS. Figure 7a, b shows the equivalent
Fig. 4. From Fig. 4, it is observed that the number of itera- von Mises stress diagram and total deformation diagram
tions performed has shown that the expected converg- for the firewater tank for the carbon steel material. It is
ing criteria are performed as per the requirement. The dif- clear from the graphs that red color shows the highest
ferent colors show the convergence rate for each solved magnitude whereas blue color shows the lowest magni-
equation considering velocity and energy. tude of stresses. From Fig. 7b, it is observed that the defor-
mation occurs near the center of the impacted area and is
5.2 CFD Simulation results the area which has undergone the maximum contact from
the incoming force. In this region, the maximum deforma-
The simulation of pressure, the flow velocity and the tion occurred is close to 2.702 m whereas the bottom of
streamlines for the designed tank were carried out using the tank remains unaffected as it is fixed.
ANSYS 15 workbench software considering a wind speed Figure 8a shows the graphical representation of abso-
of 230 km/h. The subsequent graphs of the results were lute pressure at different points on inlet, wall and outlet.
then obtained. From this figure, it is observed that the dynamic pres-
Figure 5a shows the velocity at the inlet of the tank, and sure is the highest when the position of the inlet is near
from this figure it is observed that flow velocity is irregu- 0 m and subsequently decreases as the position of inlet
lar all through the cross section. It is also observed that moves away from the center. Figure 8b shows the static
the highest flow velocity is measured at the center of the pressure at different points on inlet, wall and outlet and
cross section and steadily decreases toward the boundary the static pressure is the highest when the position of the
surface. Figure 5b, e shows the static pressure of the tank inlet is near 0 m. Figure 8c–e shows the pressure coeffi-
where it is found that the inlet has the maximum pressure cient, dynamic pressure and the total pressure at different
readings while the central zone of settling chamber expe- points on inlet, wall and outlet. From all these figures, it is
riences a touch of static pressure drop and occurs due to observed that the pressure is the highest when the posi-
turbulence at the entrance of the chamber. Due to low lev- tion of inlet is 0 m and decreases as the position of inlet
els of pressure at the test section exit, no boundary layer moves away from the center. Figure 8f–i shows the graph
thickening at the length of the test chamber walls was
found and hence makes a better tank quality. Figure 5c
shows the velocity traveling from the inlet toward the tank
at a speed of around 230 km/h, and it is observed that the
streamlines and the points at which the air impacts the
most and the least can be estimated and the contours of
velocity and magnitude of velocity of fixed cone roof tank
are as shown in Fig. 5d.

5.3 Static structural analysis

Static structural analysis of the firewater storage tank

has been performed using mechanical APDL workbench
that takes care of the numerical examination and calcula-
tions of the forces and loads. A static structural analysis
was carried on the tank with a load of 5000 N acting on
it and keeping the base as a fixed support. A similar anal-
ysis was carried out for loads and pressures of different Fig. 6  Firewater storage tank model using ANSYS

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Article SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:81 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0071-2

Table 8  Geometric properties Fig. 8  a Graphical representation of absolute pressure at differ- ▸
ent points on inlet wall and outlet (5000 N), b graphical represen-
Geometry bounding box tation of static pressure at different points of inlet, wall and outlet
Length X 14.5 m (5000 N), c graphical representation of pressure coefficient at differ-
Length Y 13.2 m ent points on inlet, wall and outlet (5000 N), d graphical represen-
tation of dynamic pressure at different points on inlet, wall and out-
Length Z 14.5 m let (5000 N), e graphical representation of total pressure on inlet,
Properties wall and outlet (5000 N), f graphical representation of velocity quo-
Volume 55.284 m3 tient at different points on inlet, wall and outlet (5000 N), g graphi-
Mass 1.2715e+005 kg cal representation of X-velocity quotient at different points on inlet,
wall and outlet (5000 N), h graphical representation of Y-velocity
Scale factor value 1 quotient at different points on inlet, wall and outlet (5000 N), i
Statistics graphical representation of Z-velocity coefficient at different points
Bodies 1 on inlet, wall and outlet (5000 N), j velocity vector colored by veloc-
Active bodies 1 ity magnitude of fixed cone roof tank (5000 N) and k velocity vec-
tors colored by static pressure of fixed cone roof tank (5000 N)
Nodes 76,958
Elements 40,104
Mesh metric None
least affected by the air velocity whereas the part of the
Basic geometry options
tank with direct contact to the incoming air undergoes
Solid bodies Yes
maximum effect due to high velocity of the incoming air
particles.

of velocity magnitude and the velocity coefficient in the

direction of X, Y and Z. From this figure, it is observed that 6 Discussion on the results
the velocity magnitude is maximum when it is farthest
away from the center of the tank and is approximately The firewater storage tank design based on standards
60 m/s, whereas it roughly remains constant which is and specifications has shown that the material specifica-
approximately 30–35 m/s at other positions of the tank. tions and allowable stress were within the limits. Also, the
The red region in the sketches shows the magnitude of maximum allowable stress for the bottom shell courses
velocity at the tank which is interior solid portion of the considering the hydrostatic test condition and the thick-
tank, whereas blue, green and dark blue show the velocity ness of the shell courses shows that the design of the tank
magnitude at the outlet, wall and solid wall, respectively. is within the allowable safe limit. The results of the ANSYS
Figure 8j, k shows the velocity contours through the X and and CFD analysis show that the annular plate, bottom
Z directions. From this diagram, it is observed that the part plate, roof plate, intermediate wire girders and anchor bolt
of the tank which is not in direct contact with the air is the design are within the allowable limit.

Fig. 7  a Equivalent von Mises stress diagram, b Total deformation diagram

Vol:.(1234567890)
SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:81 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0071-2 Research Article

Vol.:(0123456789)
Research Article SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:81 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0071-2

Fig. 8  (continued)

7 Conclusion firewater tank used have many advantages such as reduc-

ing the total cost of the system and it is more reliable for
The main objective of this research paper is to design both industries and individual users.
firewater tank and to perform CFD analysis and ANSYS
analysis from the safety point of view. From the software Compliance with ethical standards
analysis, it is observed that the recent trend is to design
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding au-
larger tanks and as such the seismic design for these larger
thor states that there is no conflict of interest.
tanks has become important in terms of safety and the
environmental impact. The failure mode of the storage
tank subjected to a seismic varies in each structural char-
References
acteristic coefficient which has been derived from the rela-
tionship between the failure mode and the seismic energy 1. Scholz M (2014) Firewater storage, treatment, recycling and
transferred to and accumulated in the structure. The pos- management: new perspectives based on experiences from
sible failure of this firewater tank has been analyzed by the United Kingdom. Water 2014(6):367–380
2. Aware RJ, Mathada VS (2015) Seismic analysis of cylindrical liq-
applying an internal hydrodynamic pressure, an axial
uid storage tank. Int J Sci Res 4(12):552–557
compressive force and the shear force simultaneously. The 3. Kronowitt R (1998) Water storage tank. US patent no. 5819773,
results obtained from the different standards show that 13 Oct
the firewater tank designed is safe from the safety point 4. Ali Roshanfekr (2016) Procedures for designing and assessing
the firewater storage tank gravel pad safety. Int J Sci Basic Appl
of view. Also, the results obtained using CFD analysis and Res 25(2):233–244
ANSYS analysis have shown that design of firewater tank is
safe. From both these results, it can be concluded that the

Vol:.(1234567890)
SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:81 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-018-0071-2 Research Article

5. Palmer SC (1994) Stresses in storage tanks caused by differen- 8. American Water Works Association (AWWA) specification tanks,
tial settlement. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part E J Process Mech Eng D100, 2011 Edition
208(1):5–16 9. ANSYS, Inc., ANSYS Fluent 15.0 user’s guide
6. API 650, Welded tanks for oil storage, 12th edition, March 2013
7. NFPA 22–2013 Edition Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire
Protection

Vol.:(0123456789)