Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

acom

a com AvestaPolarit Corrosion Management and Application Engineering 2 / 2 0 0 3 Utilizing High

AvestaPolarit Corrosion Management and Application Engineering

2/2003

Utilizing High Strength Stainless Steel for Storage Tanks

Anders Olsson – Ph.D.

AvestaPolarit AB (publ)

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 poten- tial 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.

Introduction Historically, storage tanks have been built in carbon steel with a corrosion allowance. However, due to corrosion and high main- tenance 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

however possible to further reduce the cost of storage tanks by utiliz- ing 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 stain- less steels. However, in addition to the corrosion properties, the full potential of the mechanical properties have to be fully utilized

in order to arrive at a design opti- mised 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 prop- erties 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 in- dustry. Whether the environment

acom

a com Table 1: Chemical composition and PRE for some stainless steel grades Standard – Grade
a com Table 1: Chemical composition and PRE for some stainless steel grades Standard – Grade

Table 1: Chemical composition and PRE for some stainless steel grades

Standard – Grade

 

Chemical composition

 

Structure

PRE a)

ASTM

EN

C

N

Cr

Ni

Mo

Other

304

1.4301

0.04

0.05

18.1

8.3

Austenitic

19

316L

1.4432

0.02

0.05

16.9

10.7

2.6

Austenitic

26

S31254

1.4547

0.01

0.20

20.0

18.0

6.1

Cu

Austenitic

43

S32304

1.4362

0.02

0.10

23.0

4.8

0.3

Duplex

26

S32205 b)

1.4462

0.02

0.17

22.0

5.7

3.1

Duplex

35

S32750

1.4410

0.02

0.27

25.0

7.0

4.0

Duplex

43

1.4418

0.03

0.04

16.0

5.0

1.0

Martensitic c)

20

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 approxi- mate 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 con- sidered 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 auste- nitic grades. Also the resistance to wear is, due to their higher hardness, higher for the duplex grades.

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 mini- mum 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:

t d = 4.9D(H0.3)G +CA S d E

t t = 4.9D(H0.3) S t E

where

t d

t t

is the design shell thickness,

[mm]

is the hydrostatic shell thickness, [mm]

(1)

(2)

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]

acom

a com S d S t is the design stress, [MPa] is the hydrostatic test design
a com S d S t is the design stress, [MPa] is the hydrostatic test design

S d

S t

is the design stress, [MPa]

is the hydrostatic test design stress, [MPa]

E Is the joint efficiency factor, 1.0, 0.85 or 0.7

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

20S

where

[98w (H 0.3)+p]+c

(3)

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]

However, if materials with different mechanical properties are used and:

H U 0.3

H L 0.3

S U

S L

(4)

The minimum thickness of the

upper course is calculated as

t =

D

20S

[98wH+p]+c

(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.

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 allow- ance 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 stain- less steel grades calculated accord- ing to the two standards API 650 and BS 2654 respectively are pre- sented 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 stain- less steel grades should be obtain- ed 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. Correspond- ing 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 R p0.2 /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 S d /R p0.2 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 corre- sponding ratio range for design stresses extrapolated according to the rules for austenitic stainless steels is 0.37 to 0.45. It is worth-

acom

a com Table 2: Allowable design stress at room temperature according to API 650 and BS
a com Table 2: Allowable design stress at room temperature according to API 650 and BS

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

R m [MPa]

 

API 650

BS 2654

[MPa]

S d [MPa]

S t [MPa]

S [MPa]

ASTM

EN

ASTM/EN

 

Austenitic

Carbon

304

1.4301

205/210

515/520

185/155

186

140

316L

1.4432

170/220

485/520

153/145

155

146

S32304

1.4362

400/400

600/630

360/180

266/240

a)

360

260

(267) b)

S32205

1.4462

450/460

620/640

405/186

300/248

a)

405

260

(307) b)

1.4418

680/840

612/252

453/336

a)

612

260

(453) b)

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/m 3

As can be seen in figure 1 the mini- mum 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

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 evi- dent. Also the difference between allowable design stress for the duplex and martensitic grades calculated with austenitic stainless steel and carbon steel rules accord- ing to API 650 is clearly shown.

COST COMPARISON The potential of high strength stainless steels is emphasized by means of a simple cost compari- son. A cost comparison based on minimum shell thickness accord- ing 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

Relative

ASTM

EN

cost

304

1.4301

100

316L

1.4432

150

S32304

1.4362

130

S31803

1.4462

150

1.4418

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 thick- ness 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 reflect- ed 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.

acom

a com 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 H
a com 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 H
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 H [m]
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5
10
15
20
25
H [m]

Minimum shell thickness [mm]

 

304

API

 
 

S32304 API

  304 – API     S32304 – API S32205 – API   304 – BS
  304 – API     S32304 – API S32205 – API   304 – BS
S32205 – API
S32205 – API

S32205 API

 
  304 – BS
  304 – BS

304

BS

 

S32304 BS

 

S32205 BS

 

1.4418

BS

 

1.4418

API

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 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 H [m]
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5
10
15
20
25
H [m]

Minimum shell thickness [mm]

 

304

API

 
 

S32304 API

  304 – API     S32304 – API S32205 – API   304 – BS
  304 – API     S32304 – API S32205 – API   304 – BS
S32205 – API
S32205 – API

S32205 API

 

304

BS

 
  S32304 – BS
  S32304 – BS

S32304 BS

 
 

S32205 BS

 

1.4418

BS

1.4418

API

 

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.

acom

a com 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
a com 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 H
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
H [m]

Minimum relative shell thickness [mm]

 

304

API

 
 

S32304 API

 
S32205 – API
S32205 – API

S32205 API

S32205 – API
API     S32304 – API   S32205 – API   304 – BS    
 

304

BS

 
 
  S32304 – BS
  S32304 – BS

S32304 BS

 
 

S32205 BS

 

1.4418

BS

 

1.4418

API

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 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 H [m]
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
H [m]

Minimum relative shell thickness [mm]

 

304

API

 

S32304 API

S32205 – API
S32205 – API

S32205 API

S32205 – API
304 – API   S32304 – API S32205 – API   304 – BS    
 

304

BS

 
 
  S32304 – BS

S32304 BS

 
 

S32205 BS

 

1.4418

BS

 

1.4418

API

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.

acom

a com STABILITY Now, the indicative cost com- parison depicted in figure 3 and figure 4
a com STABILITY Now, the indicative cost com- parison depicted in figure 3 and figure 4

STABILITY Now, the indicative cost com- parison 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 mini- mum 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, H 1 , of an unstiffened shell is obtained as:

H

t ( ) 3 √ D
t
(
) 3
D

1 =9.47t

(6)

Table 4: Hypothetical tank design. Based on minimum shell thickness and indicative relative shell thickness.

Course No.

H [m]

Grade ASTM/EN

Thickness [mm]

15

2

304/1.4301

5

14

4

304/1.4301

5

13

6

304/1.4301

5

12

8

S31803/1.4462

5

11

10

S31803/1.4462

5

10

12

S31803/1.4462

7

9

14

S31803/1.4462

7

8

16

S31803/1.4462

8

7

18

S31803/1.4462

9

6

20

S31803/1.4462

9

5

22

/1.4418

9

4

24

/1.4418

9

3

26

/1.4418

9

2

28

/1.4418

10

1

30

/1.4418

10

where

t

is the thickness of the top shell course.

D

is the nominal diameter of the tank.

The maximum height, H 1 , according to (6) shall be larger than a transposed shell height obtained as:

W tr i =W i

where

5 t uniform √ t actual
5
t
uniform
t
actual

(7)

W tr i

W i

is the transformed width of the ith shell course.

is the width of the ith shell course.

t uniform is the thickness of the top shell course.

t uniform is the thickness of the ith shell course.

For the tentative tank in table 4 it

is

obtained:

H

1 =12.73 and W tr i =15.73,

i.e. intermediate wind stiffeners or increased shell thickness is required. A possible solution would be to increase the thick- ness of the five upper courses from 5 to 6 mm, resulting in:

H 1 =20.08 and W tr i =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.

acom

a com 10 304 17.25 S32304 27.250 12.8   6 t=6 – 8 13 t=8 –
a com 10 304 17.25 S32304 27.250 12.8   6 t=6 – 8 13 t=8 –
10 304 17.25 S32304 27.250 12.8
10
304
17.25
S32304
27.250
12.8
 

6

t=68

13

t=814

8.25

27.25

Fig 5. Tank designs considered for storage of marble slurry.

304

t=7

304 t=7 S32304 t=7 – 1.5 1.4418 t=11.5 – 14

S32304

t=71.5

304 t=7 S32304 t=7 – 1.5 1.4418 t=11.5 – 14

1.4418

t=11.5 14

t=7 S32304 t=7 – 1.5 1.4418 t=11.5 – 14 12.8 Case: Storage Tanks for Marble Slurry
t=7 S32304 t=7 – 1.5 1.4418 t=11.5 – 14 12.8 Case: Storage Tanks for Marble Slurry

12.8

Case:

Storage Tanks for Marble Slurry

A

manufacturer of storage tanks

in

Norway has designed and

built three 3500 m 3 storage tanks for a suspension of marble dust. The design conditions were:

Volume: 3500 m 3

Calcium carbonate, CaCO 3 , specific weight 1850 kg/m 3 , no pressure

Design temperature: 90°C

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 ma-

terials. Hence alternative solutions were possible. The principles of the two alternative designs consid- ered in the final stage are shown

in figure 5. One where the auste-

nitic 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

grades, resulted in a weight reduction of 15%. The weight of Fig 6. Parts of storage

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 effici- ent 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 avail- able. The tanks were insulated before taken into service.

acom

a com Discussion and Conclusions The results presented in this paper imply that large potential cost
a com Discussion and Conclusions The results presented in this paper imply that large potential cost

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 con- tinued 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-Å 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".

ISSN 1101–0681

acom

ISSN 1101–0681 a com a com is distributed to persons actively involved in process industry development
ISSN 1101–0681 a com a com is distributed to persons actively involved in process industry development

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

Sweden Tel: +46 (0)226 810 00 Fax: +46 (0)226 813 05 www.avestapolarit.com An Outokumpu Group company

An Outokumpu Group company