STANDARDIZED ELEVATED STEEL WATER TANKS

Author(s): J. E. O'Leary
Source: Journal (American Water Works Association) , SEPTEMBER, 1925, Vol. 14, No. 3
(SEPTEMBER, 1925), pp. 190-198
Published by: Wiley

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/41227068

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal (American
Water Works Association)

This content downloaded from

131.226.103.47 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 07:51:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STANDARDIZED ELEVATED STEEL WATER TANKS1

By J. E. O'Leary2

Elevated water tanks and standpipes have occupied a position

almost parallel with cast iron pipe in the development of our modern
water-works systems. There is scarcely a small or medium sized
plant in the United States or Canada that does not boast of one or
more elevated tanks or standpipes and their use is by no means
limited to smaller plants. Large cities are beginning to appreciate
and utilize these elevated storage reservoirs to secure better pressures
in outlying sections and also to lower their pumping costs. The
increase in the use of elevated steel tanks and standpipes by the
larger plants has been very noticeable in the last eight years and it
is particularly interesting to observe the movement toward larger
tanks and standpipes. Ten years ago elevated tanks over 100,000
gallons capacity were rare, today sizes from 300,000 to 500,000
gallons are common and up to 1,000,000 gallons are not unusual.
There is no longer hesitation on the part of engineers to elevate over
4000 tons of water 75, 100 or even 150 feet in the air.
The design, manufacture and erection of elevated steel tanks and
standpipes have developed into a highly specialized industry to which
a number of companies devote practically their whole energy. As
might naturally be expected this specialization has resulted in al-
most uniform products, both in appearance and in design, from the
more prominent manufacturers in the field. Today a large percent-
age of the elevated tanks being constructed in this country are
built to the manufacturers' standard specifications. Fully 75 per
cent of all specifications for new plants or improvements to existing
plants call for tanks and standpipes to be furnished on practically
the same basis as they do pumping equipment, that is, to specify the
capacity in gallons and the height to which this capacity is to be
elevated in the case of tanks, while in pumping equipment the
1 Presented before the Manufacturers ' Association meeting, Louisville
Convention, April 28, 1925.
2 Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.
190

This content downloaded from

131.226.103.47 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 07:51:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STANDARDIZED ELEVATED STEEL WATER TANKS 191

capacity in gallons per minute and the pumping head are the vital
factors. It is also common for the engineer to specify the allowable
working stresses, the loads and the size of pipe connections. The design
and details are left almost entirely to the manufacturer. I submit
that this is a most logical position to take, as the tank specialist is
more interested in the complete success of his structure than even
the buyer, for the manufacturer has a business reputation to main-
tain which is more valuable than any single job or series of jobs.
So it is up to the tank manufacturer to design and build the best
possible structure for the lowest practical price.
I dare say there is no engineer or superintendent in this audience
who has not given his whole hearted approval to the efforts of our
able and eminent Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, to
eliminate waste in industry. You are all more or less familiar in a
general way with the intensive program of standardization that is
being promoted by Mr. Hoover and his Department. Every few
days we read of some group of manufacturers, engineers and users
being called to Washington to discuss their particular industry.
There is scarcely a single one of these conferences but that brings
to light conditions of waste that are more appalling than those that
have gone before.
This work is being carried on by the Division of Simplified Prac-
tice of the Department of Commerce with Mr. R. M. Hudson in
charge. The aim and scope of this program can perhaps be best
told by quoting a few paragraphs from a recent bulletin of the Divi-
sion entitled "Simplified Practice, What It Is and What It Offers."

Many of our industries - many more of our businesses - believe that we are
suffering from too great variety in almost every article of commerce in this
country. Leading men in widely different fields agree that the reduction of
variety, the simplifying of industrial and commercial practice in any line,
will secure some or all of these advantages :
Simplified Practice will decrease:
Stocks
Production costs
Selling expenses
Misunderstandings
All costs to user (including initial accessory and maintenance costs).
Simultaneously, Simplified Practice will increase:
Turnover
Stability of employment
Promptness of delivery
Foreign commerce

This content downloaded from

131.226.103.47 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 07:51:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 192 J. e. o'leary

Quality of product
Profit to producer, distributor
Frequently a manufacturer, or gr
eliminate excess varieties, but feels
proach either the distributors or th
posal. In other lines it is the distri
reduction of variety, if they could
while in still others, it is the user
Secretary Hoover has established
serve as a centralizing agency in br
together and to support the recom
shall mutually agree upon simplific
group in any branch - production, d
of the Division upon request.

It is the purpose of this paper t

elevated tanks. Even before t
proached the subject, the Comp
a careful study of the thousand
in the past twenty-five year
large percentage of our structures
as to capacity of tank. It was de
built in the five years precedin
special and unusual structures,
twenty-one different sizes of tan
were only 13 different capacitie
more sizes for the same capac
figures showed that 82 per ce
sizes, and that these same nine
capacities which were divided a
per cent

25,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

75,000

100,000

81.8

From these figures it was apparent to us that we would be quite

justified in adopting these seven capacities of tanks as standards
that would meet the requirements of nearly 85 per cent of our

This content downloaded from

131.226.103.47 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 07:51:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STANDARDIZED ELEVATED STEEL WATER TANKS 193

customers. Keep in mind also that our product is used by three

distinct classes of clients, municipal or private water systems, rail-
roads, and industrial plants in connection with automatic sprinkler
systems.
The study so far had only considered the size and capacity of
tanks. The height of the tower was next investigated. Here we
ran into greater variation due perhaps to different customs in the
three industries in specifying the height of tower. In municipal
work the height of tower was usually determined by specifying the
distance to the maximum or minimum water line. As a heritage
from the days of the wood tank, we find the height to the balcony
often specified. In sprinkler tanks it is almost universal practice to
specify the height to the minimum water line or, in other words, the
fire insurance interests say definitely the minimum pressure that is
acceptable on sprinkler systems. Most railroads also specify the
height to the minimum water line as they want their tanks only
high enough above the rail to assure the tenders of locomotives being
filled in a reasonable time, commensurate with low pumping costs.
We adopted as standard practice the tower height as the height to
the bottom or capacity line of the tank and all references in this
paper, to tower heights, are on this basis.
While the variation in the height of tower was large, nevertheless
the tendency of the structures to fall within certain group limits
was very marked. On railroad tanks the range was between 15
and 25 feet, with the great majority around 20 feet, so that we felt
justified in adopting one standard height of railroad tower, namely
20 feet. In sprinkler installations the tendency for variation wa&
less marked with the height of structures falling into groups around
75 and 100 feet with a great majority of these structures being at
these two heights. The municipal tanks seemed to offer the greatest
variation in the height of tower, due probably to causes mentioned
heretofore. In spite of the large variety of tower heights there was
still the same tendency to fall in groups with the preponderance
being at three distinct heights, namely 50, 75 and 100 feet.
With these definite facts as to tower heights before us we have
proceeded with our program of standardized elevated tanks. The
capacities were limited to seven in number, namely, 25,000, 30,000,
40,000, 50,000, 60,000, 75,000 and 100,000 gallons; all of these
capacities being standard for municipal and sprinkler tanks, but only
the 50,000 and 100,000 for railroad tanks. The standard height of

This content downloaded from

131.226.103.47 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 07:51:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 194 j. e. o'leary

tower for both these sizes of railroad tanks is 20 feet. Two tower
heights for municipal and sprinkler tanks were fixed for all of the
seven capacities, namely, 75 and 100 feet. These we call our Class
A Standards and we carry them completely fabricated in stock for
immediate shipment. When an order comes in for a Class A tank
the only work to be done is to attach the flanges and expansion joint
casting to the saucer plate and then load the structure onto cars from
the stock piles.
While the study of tower heights clearly indicated that 75 and
100 feet were the most common ones, it also showed the necessity
of other heights between these figures.
There seemed to be no question but that other heights should be
provided in our program of standardization, so a number of inter-
mediate designs were developed. This second series we designate
our Class В Standards. It was possible to amplify the Class В series
by adding alternate column lengths for middle and bottom panels.
For example, on the 50,000 gallon tank, the column section which
is uniform throughout and is made up of 2 channels, 12 inch X 20.7
pounds, laced, we have two top sections, three interior sections and
two bottom sections. With these seven column sections we can make,
not only the two class A Standards, but also nine Class В Standards
varying from 55 to 148 feet in height. The struts and wind bracing
rods are carried in stock completely fabricated for all Class A
Standards, while on Class В structures it is usually necessary to
fabricate the rods and struts for one or two panels. The tank, of
course, is the same for either Class A or В Structures.
The only thing that prevents us from carrying the Class В series
completely fabricated is the fact that the demand for each height
of this series is not sufficient to warrant the tying up of capital in
material and shop labor. If experience should show anyone the
desirability or if more sizes in the В Class became sufficiently active,
we could immediately move these sizes into Class A and carry them
completely fabricated.
And now that I have told you something of the sizes adopted in
this program of standardization, let me try to point out to you some
of the mutual advantages to be derived by both producer and con-
sumer.

The interest of the consumer is confined to three feature

purchase which he makes; namely, quality, quickness of del
price. Today I believe the average buyer, be he owner or e

This content downloaded from

131.226.103.47 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 07:51:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STANDARDIZED ELEVATED STEEL WATER TANKS 195

in considering any capital expenditure such as for an elevated tank,

will compare his bids on the basis of the three points mentione
above and in this same order. If a standardized product gives th
most in quality, delivery and price, then and then only is a program
of standardization justified. It is my purpose then to discuss from
the manufacturers' standpoint the advantages of a standard tank.
Taking the discussion up somewhat in the order a job is handled
through the plant I come first to drawings. As you probably know
the elevated steel tank was developed in the bridge and structural
shops. Detail shop drawings have always been one of the thorn
in the flesh of the fabricator, both in the matter of time and ex-
pense. A complete set of detail plans for a 50,000 gallon tank on a
100 foot tower would probably cost the average shop, which did not
have any standards at least $500. If never used again, this item
represents a substantial part of the cost of such a structure, but
assume that 25 duplicate tanks be built from this same set of plan
and the economy becomes self-evident.
What has been said of shop drawings applies equally well in the
making of shop templates, particularly for plate work, in the matte
of cost as applied to one job or 25 duplicate jobs. Because of th
number of times the same template can be used on standardize
work, we are enabled to make steel templates which are very care-
fully laid out by hand and thoroughly checked and rechecked s
that there is no possibility of error. These templates do not suffe
from the errors that often creep into wood or paper templates du
to changes in weather conditions, nor are they likely to be racked o
broken in handling. The steel template, which is only feasible on
duplicate work, does more to guarantee and produce absolutely true
shop work than any other one thing. There is no other branch of
the entire standardization process that shows up to better advantag
than that of templates, and this is possible only because of th
duplication as stated above. It is evident to anyone that steel
templates would not be possible from an economical standpoint
if they were used on only one job.
Then we come to the materials, the plates and structural shapes
from which the structures are built. With both the tanks and
towers standardized it is possible to decrease to a large extent the
tonnage of steel carried in stock. This means a big saving in interest
charges, for steel runs rapidly into money and the interest on this
investment in raw material must be figured as a part of the cost of

This content downloaded from

131.226.103.47 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 07:51:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 196 j. e. o'leary

the structures actually sold.

that is present in every m
and a low margin of profit a
Another decided advantag
fact that plates and shapes
eliminating the scrap or was
fabricated jobs. Of course, it
to size for any job from the
depend on the mills for pr
stocks of plates and shapes.
It is in the fabrication of these steel structures that the manu-
facturer has the opportunity to make savings by modern methods
and up-to-date machinery. But à greater factor than either of
these is duplication and duplication is not possible to any great
extent except in a standardized product. The outstanding example of
the benefits of standardization is the Ford car. So familiar is every-
one with this product that no discussion is necessary. While we
can never hope to approach the degree of perfection obtained by
the Ford organization, we can already see the big savings that are
possible in fabricating fifteen or twenty duplicate structures at one
time. There are many fine machines today that are a distinct
liability to a plant for lack of work to enable them to earn their way.
With the continuous operation that standardization offers these
same machines become real assets in their ability to turn out work
at low costs. These modern machines also have the advantage of
producing a better and more accurate grade of work than was ever
possible by the antiquated hand methods. An example of this is
our ladder making machine on which all the operations are done on
one machine, punching the side bars, swedging the rungs and rivet-
ing the rungs into the side bars. This machine makes much better
ladders than were every made by the old process at one-fifth the
cost. But keep in mind that it must have ladders to make in order
to pay for itself. Punching of both the plates and the structural
members constitutes a fairly large part of the shop work on one
of these structures. With the steel templates heretofore mentioned,
no laying out of plates is done, the template being clamped onto the
correctly sized plate and the punching done directly through the
steel template.
Milling columns also shows to a marked degree the benefits of
standardization. Instead of using the old type of machine with a

This content downloaded from

131.226.103.47 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 07:51:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STANDARDIZED ELEVATED STEEL WATER TANKS 197

fixed cutter, which could only mill one column at a time, we are now
able to utilize a milling machine with a travelling cutter which
permits as many as twelve columns being clamped into correct
position and milled at one setting. Likewise in dishing hemispheri-
cal bottom plates, the changing of the machine to accommodate
different diameters of tanks has been one of the time consuming
elements that built up costs. The savings to be made by permitting
the machine to dish on a single size of plates for a full day's run are
self-evident.
While it is true that the greatest advantages and savings from a
standardized product are most evident in the manufacturing end,
still to a lesser degree is this same advantage maintained in the
erection of these structures. Because of the uniformly better grade
of shop work that is turned out on account of standardization, the
work naturally fits together much better in the field with the result
that the time required for assembling and riveting is materially
reduced. Further savings are also possible on account of workmen
becoming more familiar with the small number of tank and tower
sizes and heights that are used in this standardization program.
Then of course there is the further advantage in the matter of
erection equipment. With the tower heights standardized, naturally
the rigging equipment is more or less standardized to handle the
work. The time saved in the erection due to the better shop work
and the familiarity of the workmen with the uniform product are
outstanding advantages of a standardization program.
As suggested earlier in this paper, one of the real premises on
which a standardization program is justified is the quality of the
product. It is unnecessary to argue this point. With steel tem-
plates, as stated above, it is practically impossible to make any
errors in punching the plates or shapes, so that when once the steel
templates are correct, the problem of producing correct shop work is
entirely eliminated. This means a quality product. The shop
work being correct there are none of the field errors that have been
found so often in the past.
Selling and engineering expenses are also decreased to a large
extent by standardization. To design and estimate the cost of an
average size of tank and tower of special design will require the time
of a good engineer for the better part of a day. When this same
man can prepare proposals on fifteen standard outfits in the same
length of time the saving is quite apparent.

This content downloaded from

131.226.103.47 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 07:51:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 198 j. e. o'leary

As stated in an early paragr

product are to save time and
I have attempted to show
complish this in our stand
feel that I had failed in my
you engineers and superinte
these standard sizes of struc
able to your personal prob
such that it fits the exact ne
The tower heights vary more
your problem of design is af
of tower of 10 feet. To comp
lation of our Class A and В Standards:

BB BABBABBBBB

25M 44'8* 50'0' 69'8' 75'0* lOO'O' 125'0'

30M 44'8' 50'0' 69'8' 75'0* lOO'O" 125'0*
40M 46'3' 75'0' 96'3' lOO'O' 125'0"
50M 55'0' 63'4' 75'0' 83'4' 91'8' lOO'O' 111'8" 120'0' 128'4' 140'0' 148'4*
60M 55'0' 63'4' 75'0' 83'4' 91'8' lOO'O" 111'8" 120'0* 128'4' HO'O' 148'8r
75M 55'0* 63'4* 75'0' 83'4' 91'8' lOO'O* 111'8' 120'0' 128'4' 140'0' 148'4"
100M 50'0* 63'lr 75'0* 797' 91'6' lOO'O* ИЗ'Г Пб'б" 125'0' Ш'в' 153'4r

You will recall that Class A designs are carried in stoc

fabricated and ready for immediate shipment. Cla
use the same tanks as Class A and so the tanks are
fabricated. Likewise the columns are all finished, so th
work to be done on Class В Standards is the fabrication of some of
the struts and rods.
This discussion has been confined entirely to tanks from 25,000
to 100,000 gallons, for, as explained in the early part of this paper,
this range of sizes comprised 82 per cent of all the tanks built by
our company in five years preceding the adoption of our standardi-
zation program. You will understand of course that both large
and smaller tanks are often desirable and the designs are thoroughly
standardized, but as yet the demand is not sufficient to warrant
their being carried completely fabricated in stock, so I have elim-
inated them from this discussion. The use of standard designs
in both the larger and smaller sizes offers many of the advantages
of our standardization, especially as to savings in both time and
money on drawings and templates.

This content downloaded from

131.226.103.47 on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 07:51:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms