Looking at work files, I found some data by chance that may be of interest:
1. Gael D. Ulrich (Chemical Engineering, Process Design and Economics, 2nd ed, PP, 2004) reports a "typical maximum size" of 8000 m3 for spherical vessel (Table 4.27, Criteria and data for Preliminary Design of storage vessels). This seems on the high side to me, but it is probably realizable in USA.
2. A letter of 1990 made a choice between one (diameter=23 m) or two (diameter=19.1 m each) propylene spheres of 16 kgf/cm2 g design pressure. Beveling (forming round) 70-80 mm thick steel plates for the former could be done by quite few companies in Western Europe. However beveling 50-60 mm thick steel plates for the latter could be done by much more companies, being on the high side of normal limits. The semi-qualitative conclusion was that total cost of two spheres was less than this of one (the Project was not realized).
3. So a way would be to search for max plate thickness that can be beveled locally (e.g. in Brazil) and decide sphere diameter (and capacity) according to your findings. If resulting sphere size does not look big enough, search (and relevant budget cost) could be extended over a broader area.
4. In that letter of 1990 semi-refrigerated storage to -5 0C was rejected, as not having a total cost advantage compared to simpler non refrigerated storage. However in about 1995 semi refrigerated storage was selected in a similar case, evidently on the ground that vapor cloud created in loss of containment would be less compared to non refrigerated storage.
Edited by kkala, 01 June 2010 - 03:53 PM.