Effective volume within the oil tank dike

I personally think it’s not very reasonable. The purpose of installing dikes is merely to reduce the extent of contamination in the event of a small leak of flammable liquids, and it is not intended for storing large quantities of oil. The fire dike is used to store oil in case of a rupture at the bottom of the oil tank. Therefore, the effective volume of the fire dike should not be less than the volume of the largest storage tank in the tank farm, while it is only required that the effective volume of the fire dike be 10% of the volume of the largest storage tank

Firstly, I disagree with what the moderator on the second floor said: “The effective volume of the fire dike only needs to be 10% of the maximum volume of the storage tank.” GB50074 - 2002 stipulates that the effective volume of the fire dike in a tank area with fixed-roof tanks should be no less than the capacity of the largest tank, while in a tank area with floating-roof tanks it should be no less than half the capacity of the largest tank.

Secondly, if the effective volume within the fire dike is considered in accordance with GB50074-2002, an emergency accident pool must be constructed within the oil depot, and its volume should be calculated as the storage capacity of the largest tank plus the maximum amount of water required for firefighting plus the amount of foam plus the amount of rainwater. If the tank farm covers a large area and contains a large number of oil tanks, it is possible to consider increasing the effective volume within the fire dike to meet the volume requirements for emergency containment ponds, as a primary measure for preventing accidents in the oil depot.

The original poster doesn’t know what job the person in question does, but if the standards you mentioned are applied, it’s likely that 100% of oil depots in the mainland would fail to meet those standards and would be unable to make the necessary improvements. In fact, the current design standards such as GB50074-2002, along with other relevant standards, take all factors into sufficient consideration. When addressing these issues, we should not only think about how to deal with accidents after they occur, but also focus on how to prevent them from happening in the first place, by ensuring the safety and reliability of the equipment through proper design

I work in storage and transportation design, but the question raised here is precisely **how should we deal with the requirements put forward by the functional departments during project reviews regarding the design?** The standards and relevant international reference data are already available, but I’m still frustrated. I share the same views as those from floors 2 to 5, but will the opinions of departments such as environmental protection, safety, and fire control be implemented or not? ! Also, I understand that the term “fire dike” used by the moderator on the second floor in the last sentence might be a typo; it should be “separation dike””

According to GB50074-2002, for dome tanks the maximum relevant capacity applies; for steel internal floating roofs, half of the maximum capacity is sufficient. For capacities exceeding 20,000 cubic meters, the number of separation structures should not exceed 2. For all tanks with a capacity of 100,000 cubic meters, one separation structure can be used for every two tanks, with each section having a capacity of 50,000 cubic meters. In the OP’s opinion, using a separate container with a capacity of 100,000 cubic meters for something that also requires 100,000 cubic meters seems a bit wasteful. I’d appreciate some insights from those who are more experienced.

In accordance with the \"Petroleum and Chemical Industry Code\" GB50016 and the \"Oil Depot Code\" GB50074, the effective volume within the fire dike in a tank farm is equal to the volume of the largest tank (for tanks with internal floating roofs, this value can be halved); the volume within the partition dike is 1/10 of the volume of that dike. Therefore, referring to what the original poster said – that a tank farm of 100,000 cubic meters per tank is proposed, with a dike installed for each tank and the volume within each dike required to be 100,000 cubic meters – based on this calculation, if a tank farm has 4 tanks of 100,000 cubic meters each, with 4 dikes, the effective volume within the fire dike should be 400,000 cubic meters. If there are 6 tanks of 100,000 cubic meters each, with 6 dikes, the effective volume within the fire dike would be 600,000 cubic meters. I think such a regulation or requirement is unreasonable; if a tank farm has 4 tanks of 100,000 cubic meters each, then an effective volume of 100,000 cubic meters within the fire dike is sufficient, and a volume of 10,000 cubic meters per dike is also sufficient.

GB50016-2008 requires that the effective volume within the dike be 10% of the capacity of the largest storage tank, while GB50074 stipulates that the dike should be 0.2~0.3 m lower than the top surface of the fire dike. By combining these requirements, it is possible to determine the height of the fire dike and the dike as well as the area of the tank area; the calculations provided for floor 8 are acceptable. Give it a push.

According to the regulations, the effective volume within the fire dike should be that of the largest storage tank, in order to prevent pollution incidents resulting from the rupture of such tanks. If the tank is part of a tank farm, the fire dike only requires 100,000; increasing the fire-fighting water volume can be considered