In the code it uses the entire weight of the product for stability check, but uses only weight on effective width of annular plate for tank self-anchorage check, and ignores any product weight in anchor (number and size) check. While I can understand these are for either ease of design or to be...
For mechanically anchored tanks, the weight of foundation and the fill directly on it (and uplift resistance of piles if applicable) should be able to hold the maximum force that could be developed in the anchors. I think API 650 should explicitly include this clause in the standard, in addition...
I am updating a spreadsheet for API 650 tank foundation design. I've posted a couple questions and thanks to those who have provided your answers.
Here comes the 3rd question.
With regard to foundation stability (E.6.2.3), API 650 requires to check the stability under slab moment against the...
Table E.1 and E.2 in API 650 V13 define Fa and Fv factors as functions of site class A thru F. The values do not align with those in ASCE 7. Anyone knows why API doesn't use the same Fa and Fv as in ASCE 7?
So why API changed J from 1.57 to 1.54? If it was to align with AWWA, then why AWWA used 1.54 not 1.57? I know the difference is minor and has no effect on design.
Thanks for your answer HTURKAK (Structural). I will post my thread under the right topics in the future.
I actually understood where the J criteria coming from. However, the fact that API650 decided to use 1.54 instead of 1.57 confuses me. Why not using 1.50 if just for being conservative, or...
Hi,
This is with regard to the anchorage ratio J (Table E6) in API 650 V13. My understanding is J = 0.785 (Pi/4)corresponds to eccentricity of D/4, while J = 1.54 (close to Pi/2 = 1.57) corresponds to eccentricity of D/2 but with a small (0.03/1.54 = 2%) difference. What is the significance of...
