the chemical storage tank farm bund(dike) design 1

[navycaptain]

I'd like to ask an question about bund shape design.In order to contain the chemical imperviousely during storage tank crack or catch a
fire. the bund are suggested to design like sea wall with slope(see the attachment), this can be stronger than vertical bund wall. As the incident investigation report in Buncefield incident, the bund cracked due to various reason.
Are there any standard that require the bund shape design? thank you!

Youth is not a time of life, it's a state of mind.

 

[MJCronin]

Where are you located ?

What liquid is being stored ??? Water ? JP-5 ??? Maple Syrup ????

Details of the required bund (Secondary Containment) design is set by the National/State fire protection regulations and State statute. Consult NFPA-30 as well as the appropriate state rules

Secondary containment volume should be 110% of the single largest enclosed tankage. If the tank is protected by an AFFF system, the volume could be much larger

Secondary Containment design must be worked with tank spacing and minimum distances between tanks. Pump locations and mechanical/electrical penetration design through the containment must be also considered.

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[navycaptain]

Thank you MJCronin
There is no specific liquid. I read an article about the preferred dike design regarding to flammable liquid.

I understand incombustible material should be used to seal the penetration pipe and tank space be consired based on code and standard.

I'd like to ask if there is a design standard for the shape of dike, such as an angle, not vertical wall, to better contained the liquid

if there is tank crack happened. thank you!

Youth is not a time of life, it's a state of mind.

 

[MJCronin]

Secondary Containment and wall design must be worked along with leak detection and liner permeability

Everything depends on the specific case that applies to your tank.

The ultimate bund profile that you select is the least of your worries ....

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/tanks05.pdf

The Buncefield disaster in England was not a failure of the engineering secondary containment design. ... It was clearly an MBA management failure where there was no site wide HAZOP-like study, no emergency pump shutoff on high-high tank levels and an incompetent operating staff.

Short of putting the jet fuel tanks in a deep underground cavern, no improved bund design could have prevented that mess ....

What are you specifically trying to do ????

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[MJCronin]

This might help ....

https://archive.epa.gov/emergencies/content/fss/web/pdf/elder.pdf

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[navycaptain]

Thank MJCoin! The document you recommend is pretty useful. I'm not designing a chemical dike, I just want to learn something about the

dike design since I found the Buncefiled report that the dike was not designed with metal waterstops and also catastrophic failure of the

walls at pipe penetration.

So I tried to get to investigate which kind of dike shape design is safer fot chemical storage tank, and compared with my several plants,

if we can offer better dike design proposal selelction when we design new chemical plant. So i found the new kind of design described

above in an article, the author recommend chemical storage tank dike design like sea wall.

Youth is not a time of life, it's a state of mind.