acom

AvestaPolarit Corrosion Management and Application Engineering

2/2003

Utilizing High Strength Stainless Steel for Storage Tanks

This paper addresses the use of high strength stainless steels for storage tanks. It has been shown that despite the fact that the corrosion resistance of type 304 austenitic stainless steel grades is sufficient for many applications, large potential cost reductions if high strength stainless steels are utilized. The potential cost reduction is depending on the design standard used. Out the grades considered herein, minimum shell thickness is, with exception of 304, higher according to API 650 than the corresponding thickness according to BS 2654. Possible design solutions comprising high strength stainless steel are supported by means of a case: Three storage tanks for marble slurry designed according to the British standard BS 2654. Three different grades were utilized to arrive at a tank design optimised with respect to corrosion as well as structural resistance. Grades used were: The austenitic 304 for the roof and top courses, the duplex S32304 for the middle part and bottom whereas the very high strength martensitic 1.4418 was used for the bottom part.

in order to arrive at a design optimised with respect to corrosion as well as structural resistance. Several of the design codes often used for storage tank design do currently restrict the use of high strength stainless steels, e.g. by restrictions with respect to the maximum allowable design stress. There is hence a need to address the structural resistance and design codes. Recent examples have shown that stainless steel grades with very high mechanical properties can be effectively utilized in the design of storage tanks. Corrosion Resistance Corrosion resistance or in the case of carbon steel, lack of corrosion resistance, is the main reason for using stainless steels for storage tanks. Even in not very corrosive environments carbon steel show thinning and consequently has to be protected or designed with a corrosion allowance. Due to the corrosion problems with carbon steel, stainless steels are frequently used in the pulp and paper industry. Whether the environment
1(10)

Introduction Historically, storage tanks have been built in carbon steel with a corrosion allowance. However, due to corrosion and high maintenance many storage tanks have been designed with an inner stainless steel lining, coating or cathodic protection. For decades storage tanks have also been designed and built in austenitic stainless steels. These grades do have a corrosion resistance high enough for many applications in the pulp and paper industry. It is
2/2003

however possible to further reduce the cost of storage tanks by utilizing high strength stainless steels. This paper addresses the use of high strength stainless steel in storage tanks. Corrosion properties are discussed, but mechanical properties and design codes are emphasized. Corrosion properties are of course very important and the main reason to consider stainless steels. However, in addition to the corrosion properties, the full potential of the mechanical properties have to be fully utilized

acom

Table 1: Chemical composition and PRE for some stainless steel grades Standard Grade ASTM 304 316L S31254 S32304 S32205b) S32750 EN 1.4301 1.4432 1.4547 1.4362 1.4462 1.4410 1.4418 C 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 Chemical composition N 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.10 0.17 0.27 0.04 Cr 18.1 16.9 20.0 23.0 22.0 25.0 16.0 Ni 8.3 10.7 18.0 4.8 5.7 7.0 5.0 Mo 2.6 6.1 0.3 3.1 4.0 1.0 Other Cu Austenitic Austenitic Austenitic Duplex Duplex Duplex Martensiticc) 19 26 43 26 35 43 20 Structure PREa)

a) PRE = %Cr + 3.3*%Mo+16*%N b) Exists also as S31803 c) Approximately 80% martensite, 15% austenite and 5% ferrite.

is mildly or highly corrosive, there are suitable stainless steel grades. The chemical composition and the PRE of some stainless steel grades is shown in table 1. The PRE is a general approximate rating of the pitting corrosion resistance, but is still used for a general ranking between grades with respect to corrosion resistance. It is here shown to give an idea of the relative corrosion resistance for the stainless steel grades considered in this paper. Jean-Pierre Audouard et.al. have in a series of papers, [1], [2], [3], presented extensive reviews and data on corrosion problems in connection with storage tanks in different service environments. The general conclusion drawn is that the corrosion resistance of type 304 and 316 austenitic stainless steels is sufficient for many applications. Considering also stress corrosion cracking it is well known that the resistance of duplex grades is superior to the one of the austenitic grades. Also the resistance to wear is, due to their higher hardness, higher for the duplex grades.
2/2003

Shell Design Cylindrical walls of storage tanks and silos are usually designed to carry internal pressure from the stored media. This means that the shell thickness usually vary along the shell. In service, also loadings comprising external pressure, e.g. wind load on the empty tank, may occur. Hence requiring checking of the buckling resistance of the storage tank. Often used design codes for design of storage tanks are: API 650 American standard BS 2654 British standard DIN 4119 German standard CODRES French standard In this paper the first two are addressed, i.e. API 650 [4] and BS 2654 [5]. Furthermore, reference is made to the Shell Stability Handbook, edited by Eggwertz and Samuelsson [6], regarding shell stability. Design of storage tanks comprises calculation of a minimum thickness of the shell. The thickness of each shell course is according to both the considered standards based on the circum-

ferential stress in a section 0.3 m above the bottom of each course. Minimum shell thickness is according to the considered design codes obtained as: API 650 THE AMERICAN STANDARD The expressions in API 650 for calculating the minimum shell thickness are: td = 4.9D(H 0.3)G +CA Sd E tt = 4.9D(H 0.3) St E where td is the design shell thickness, [mm] tt is the hydrostatic shell thickness, [mm] D is the tank diameter, [m] H is the distance from the course under consideration to the top of the tank shell or to the over flow designed to limit the fluid height G is the density of the stored liquid, [g/ml]
2(10)

(1)

(2)

acom

Sd is the design stress, [MPa] St is the hydrostatic test design stress, [MPa] Is the joint efficiency factor, 1.0, 0.85 or 0.7

However, if materials with different mechanical properties are used and: HU 0.3 HL 0.3 SU SL The minimum thickness of the upper course is calculated as t = D [98wH+p]+c 20S (4)

CA is the corrosion allowance, [mm] For shells where 500Dt > 2H, the shell thickness shall be based on an elastic analysis showing the circumferential stress to be below the allowable design stress at the specified temperature. No course may be thinner than the course above. BS 2654 THE BRITISH STANDARD The minimum shell thickness is expressed somewhat differently in BS 2654, but besides the internal pressure the equations are equal: t = D [98w(H 0.3)+p]+c 20S where t is the minimum shell thickness D is the tank diameter, [m] S is the design stress, [MPa] w is the density of the stored liquid, [g/ml], but w shall not be less than 1.0 H is the distance from the course under consideration to the top of the tank shell or to the over flow designed to limit the fluid height p is the design pressure, [mbar] c is the corrosion allowance,[mm]
2/2003

(5)

Indices U and L respectively in (4) refer to the upper and lower courses with respect to the change of mechanical properties. Futhermore, also according to BS 2654 no course may be thinner than the course above.

(3)

DESIGN STRESS Stainless steel grades considered in the American standard API 650, 2001 edition, are: 304, 304L, 316, 316L, 317 and 317, i.e. all austenitic grades. Austenitic-ferritic or duplex stainless steel grades are currently not covered by the standard. The maximum design stress for the austenitic stainless steel grades is obtained as the lesser of: 0.3 times the minimum tensile strength or 0.9 times the minimum yield strength. Corresponding rules for carbon steel grades are: The lesser of 2/3 times the yield stress and 0.4 times the tensile strength. The Brittish standard BS 2654 does not refer to a standard for stainless steels, but states allowance for use of suitable materials agreed between the purchaser and the manufacturer. The maximum design stress shall be two-thirds of:

the minimum yield strength or 260 MPa, whichever is the lower. Hence limiting the standard to grades with yield strength equal to or less than 390 MPa. Allowable design stresses at room temperature for some stainless steel grades calculated according to the two standards API 650 and BS 2654 respectively are presented in table 2. API 650 design stresses for the duplex grades are obtained by extrapolation. It can be discussed whether the design stress for the duplex stainless steel grades should be obtained according to the austenitic stainless steel or the carbon steel rules. Considering the design stresses according to API 650 shown in table 2, it can be noted that design stresses for the duplex and marten-sitic grades calculated as for the austenitic grades are relatively low compared with the minimum yield stress. Corresponding stresses calculated according to the carbon steel rules results in a design stress minimum yield stress ratio closer to the ones for the austenitic grades. A result explained by the ratio Rp0.2/Rm, which is higher for the duplex and martensitic grades. Despite the higher design stress obtained by means of the carbon steel rules, the ratio Sd/Rp0.2 ranges from 0.40 to 0.49 for the duplex and martensitic grades whereas it ranges from 0.75 to 0.85 for the two austenitic grades. The corresponding ratio range for design stresses extrapolated according to the rules for austenitic stainless steels is 0.37 to 0.45. It is worth3(10)

acom

Table 2: Allowable design stress at room temperature according to API 650 and BS 2654 respectively. Design stresses according to API 650 for the duplex grades and the martensitic grade are extrapolated. Standard Grade Rp0.2 [MPa] Rm [MPa] API 650 Sd [MPa] Austenitic 185/155 153/145 360/180 405/186 612/252 Carbon 266/240 300/248 453/336 186 155 360a) 405a) 612a) 140 146 260 (267)b) 260 (307)b) 260 (453)b) St [MPa] BS 2654 S [MPa]

ASTM 304 316L S32304 S32205

EN 1.4301 1.4432 1.4362 1.4462 1.4418

ASTM/EN 205/210 170/220 400/400 450/460 515/520 485/520 600/630 620/640 680/840

a) Extrapolated. b) Design stresses within brackets calculated with no consideration of the 260 MPa limit.

while to note that despite the higher design stresses obtained by means of the carbon steel rules, the extrapolated design stresses for the duplex grades are lower than the design stresses according to BS 2654. Considering eq. (1) and (3) it is obvious that the relation between the various design stresses in table 2 and the minimum shell thicknesses for the different stainless steel grades is linear. The minimum shell thicknesses based on austenitic stainless steel rules and carbon steel rules are shown in figure 1 and figure 2 respectively. Hypothetical design conditions assumed are: Tank height: 30 m Diameter: 12 m Specific weight of stored media: 1 850 kg/m3 As can be seen in figure 1 the minimum shell thickness according to BS 2654 for the stainless steel grades S32304, S32205 and 1.4418 is the same. A fact due to the upper
2/2003

allowable design stress limit, 260 MPa. In figure 2 corresponding minimum thicknesses obtained without consideration of the upper limit are shown. The difference in minimum shell thickness is evident. Also the difference between allowable design stress for the duplex and martensitic grades calculated with austenitic stainless steel and carbon steel rules according to API 650 is clearly shown. COST COMPARISON The potential of high strength stainless steels is emphasized by means of a simple cost comparison. A cost comparison based on minimum shell thickness according to the two standards API 650 and BS 2654. It is worthwhile to notice that in addition to reduced weight, a reduced plate thickness also results in reduced welding time, i.e. the cost may be further reduced. Indicative relative cost (European alloy prices, AprilMay 2002) of some stainless steel grades is shown in table 3. The

Table 3: Indicative relative cost for some stainless steel grades Standard Grade ASTM 304 316L S32304 S31803 EN 1.4301 1.4432 1.4362 1.4462 1.4418 Relative cost 100 150 130 150 150

indicative relative cost is used to visualise the principle of potential cost reductions possible with high strength stainless steel grades. From the minimum shell thickness shown in figure 1, figure 2 and the indicative relative cost in table 2, a minimum relative shell thickness can be obtained. These are shown in figure 3 and figure 4. The method used to calculate allowable design stresses is reflected also in the relative thickness. The range, i.e. cost reduction potential, is clearly wider for the: API 650 carbon steel rules and BS 2654 no consideration of upper stress limit.
4(10)

acom

30

25
304 API S32304 API S32205 API 304 BS S32304 BS S32205 BS 1.4418 BS 1.4418 API

20 H [m]

15

10

0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Minimum shell thickness [mm] Fig 1. Minimum shell thickness according to API 650 and BS 2654. Minimum shell thickness according to API650 for the duplex and martensitic grades are based on design stresses extrapolated using austenitic stainless steel rules.

30

25
304 API S32304 API S32205 API 304 BS S32304 BS S32205 BS 1.4418 BS 1.4418 API

20 H [m]

15

10

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Minimum shell thickness [mm] Fig 2: Minimum shell thickness according to API 650 and BS 2654. Shell thickness according to API 650 for the duplex and martensitic grades are based on design stresses extrapolated using carbon steel rules. BS 2654 thicknesses are obtained with no consideration of the 260 MPa limit.

2/2003

5(10)

acom

30

25
304 API S32304 API S32205 API 304 BS S32304 BS S32205 BS 1.4418 BS 1.4418 API

20 H [m]

15

10

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Minimum relative shell thickness [mm] Fig 3. Indicative minimum relative shell thickness based on relative prices in table. Relative thicknesses according to API 650 for the duplex and martensitic grades are based on design stresses extrapolated using austenitic stainless steel rules.

30

25
304 API S32304 API S32205 API 304 BS S32304 BS S32205 BS 1.4418 BS 1.4418 API

20 H [m]

15

10

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Minimum relative shell thickness [mm] Fig 4. Indicative minimum relative shell thickness based on relative prices in table. Relative thicknesses according to API 650 for the duplex and martensitic grades are based on design stresses extrapolated using carbon steel rules. BS 2654 thicknesses are obtained with no consideration of the 260 MPa limit.

2/2003

6(10)

acom

STABILITY Now, the indicative cost comparison depicted in figure 3 and figure 4 shows that compared with a storage tank designed in 304, cost reductions are possible if high strength stainless steels are utilized. It has though to be emphasized that the comparison is indicative, relative material costs vary and welding of the martensitic grade 1.4418 is more complicated than welding in austenitic or duplex grades. Welding of the martensitic grade 1.4418 is briefly discussed in connection with a case described below. Furthermore, stability is not considered in the comparison. Nevertheless, the comparison highlights high strength stainless steels as cost effective. Consider the minimum shell thickness in figure 2, the relative minimum shell thickness in figure 4 and API 650. From these the tentative tank design shown in table 4 can be obtained. The high strength grades are used in the lower and middle parts whereas the low strength 304 grade is used for the upper part. However, in addition to the minimum thickness, the stability of the tank has to be checked for the load case: Empty tank subjected to wind load. According to API 650 the maximum height, H1, of an unstiffened shell is obtained as: H1=9.47t( t )3 D (6)

Table 4: Hypothetical tank design. Based on minimum shell thickness and indicative relative shell thickness. Course No. 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 H [m] 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Grade ASTM/EN 304/1.4301 304/1.4301 304/1.4301 S31803/1.4462 S31803/1.4462 S31803/1.4462 S31803/1.4462 S31803/1.4462 S31803/1.4462 S31803/1.4462 /1.4418 /1.4418 /1.4418 /1.4418 /1.4418 Thickness [mm] 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10

where t is the thickness of the top shell course.

For the tentative tank in table 4 it is obtained: H1 =12.73 and Wtri =15.73, i.e. intermediate wind stiffeners or increased shell thickness is required. A possible solution would be to increase the thickness of the five upper courses from 5 to 6 mm, resulting in: H1 =20.08 and Wtri =18.44. A stability check according to the Shell Stability Handbook, edited by Eggwertz and Samuelsson [6], using the same conditions as above, results in a maximum external uniform pressure, e.g. caused by wind load, of 1.4 kPa. The following assumptions was made: Reduction factor for tolerances and manufacturing method 0.9, partial coefficient for determination of allowable stress 1.2.

D is the nominal diameter of the tank. The maximum height, H1, according to (6) shall be larger than a transposed shell height obtained as: Wtri = Wi where Wtr is the transformed width of the ith shell course. is the width of the ith shell course.

tuniform tactual

(7)

Wi

tuniform is the thickness of the top shell course. tuniform is the thickness of the ith shell course.

2/2003

7(10)

acom

6 10 304 t = 68

304

t =7

13 17.25 S32304 t = 8 14 8.25 27.250 12.8 Fig 5. Tank designs considered for storage of marble slurry. 27.25

S32304

t =7 1.5

1.4418

t =11.5 14

12.8

Case: Storage Tanks for Marble Slurry A manufacturer of storage tanks in Norway has designed and built three 3500 m3 storage tanks for a suspension of marble dust. The design conditions were: Volume: 3500 m3 Calcium carbonate, CaCO3, specific weight 1850 kg/m3, no pressure Design temperature: 90C Design standard: BS 2654 The service environment, mildly corrosive, allowed also low alloy grades such as 304 and 1.4418 to be considered as potential materials. Hence alternative solutions were possible. The principles of the two alternative designs considered in the final stage are shown in figure 5. One where the austenitic grade 304 and the duplex grade S32304 were used, and one with the three grades, 304, S32304 and 1.4418. Alternative two, with three grades, resulted in a weight reduction of 15%. The weight of
2/2003 Fig 6. Parts of storage tanks before assembly.

the two alternatives was 129 and 110 metric tonnes respectively. The second alternative furthermore proved to be the most cost efficient of the two and was selected for the three storage tanks. Welding of the martensitic grade 1.4418 did require special considerations regarding welding method and consumables to be used. After tests with respect to welding and obtained properties, consumables used were the same as used for the duplex grade S32205. Welding methods used

were submerged arc welding, SAW, and flux core arc welding, FCAW. Nor did welding of the martensitic grade to the duplex grade did not cause any problems. The tank shells were welded in sections with a maximum weight of 75 metric tonnes at the manufacturer and subsequently transported to the customer for assembly, see figure 6. The weight limit was due to the maximum lifting capacity of the crane available. The tanks were insulated before taken into service.
8(10)

acom

Discussion and Conclusions The results presented in this paper imply that large potential cost reductions for storage tanks are possible if high strength stainless steels are utilized. Depending on the design code used, the potential cost reduction varies. Difference in design resistance is not unique for the area of storage tank design, but still has to be addressed. There are, as mentioned several times in this paper, relatively large differences between design codes. Differences, due to tradition and design philosophies. The mechanics are however the same, thus implying a need for continued harmonization of standards. From the results presented in this paper it is concluded: There are differences between design codes with respect to allowable design stress and hence minimum shell thickness of storage tanks. High strength stainless steel can be, and have been, successfully utilized in order to obtain cost effective storage tanks. Combining grades in order to optimise storage tanks with respect to corrosion as well as structural resistance has been shown to be cost effective.

References [1] Audouard, J-P. et.al. Duplex stainless steels for tanks in the pulp & paper industry. Proceedings: INDUSTEEL 10th ISCPPI, Helsink, Finland, August 2001 [2] Audouard, J-P. et.al. Duplex stainless steels for tanks in the pulp & paper industry. Proceedings: TAPPI 2001 [3] Audouard, J-P. and Grocki, J. Duplex stainless steels for storage tanks. Proceedings: NACE 2002, Denver Colorado, USA, April 2002 [4] API Standard 650, Tenth edition incl, addedum 1(2000) and addendum 2(2001) (1998). Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, USA [5] BS 2654:1989 incl. amendment No. 1. (1989). Specification for: Manufacture of vertical steel welded non-refrigerated storage tanks with butt-welded shells for the petroleum industry, BSI, British standard Institute [6] Shell Stability Handbook (1992). Ed. by Samuelsson, L- and Eggwertz, S, Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, ISBN 1-85166-954-X

"This paper was originally presented at TAPPI Engineering Conference in Anaheim USA in 1999. Republished with the kind permission of the authors and TAPPI".

2/2003

9(10)

acom

acom is distributed to persons actively involved in process industry development and other areas where stainless steels are important. All rights reserved. If you have any queries regarding acom, please contact me at jan.olsson@avestapolarit.com or by telephone on +46 (0) 226 812 48, fax +46 (0)226 813 05. Jan Olsson
Technical Editor, acom AvestaPolarit AB

AvestaPolarit AB Research and Development SE-774 80 Avesta, Sweden Tel: +46 (0)226 810 00 Fax: +46 (0)226 813 05 www.avestapolarit.com

ISSN 11010681

An Outokumpu Group company

1/2003

10(10)