Paper # 41

LIFE CYCLE COST EVALUATION

OF CARBON STEELS, AUSTENITIC AND DUPLEX STAINLESS STEELS
FOR STORAGE TANKS

Jean-Pierre Audouard, Christophe Dernoncourt

USINOR INDUSTEEL

ABSTRACT

Due to its availability and low cost, carbon steel has been used for decades to build storage tanks.
The main applications were petrochemical industry, food industry, water treatment units and
parachemical industry.

Nevertheless, as this material is readily oxydable even in the atmosphere, painting and coating are
often to be applied to protect it. For the time being, the use of coated carbon steel remains a routine
practice, but detailed analysis of capital investment cost as well as life cycle cost demonstrate that
stainless steels are cost competitive. Among these materials, duplex grades, thanks to their higher
mechanical properties, appear to be less expensive than coated carbon steel.

The paper presents an extensive and detailed analysis of the manufacturing and maintenance costs
for storage tanks made of various materials including several carbon steel grades and stainless
steels either austenitics and super-austenitics or duplexes and super-duplexes.

A friendly software has been developped which permits to calculate and compare automatically
investment and life cycle costs of tanks made of different materials. The simulation is based upon
API (USA) and CODRES (France) calculation codes ; moreover, taylor made simulations may also
be achieved.

INTRODUCTION

Due to its availability, low cost and easy fabricability even in non developped countries, carbon
steel (CS) has been used for decades to build storage tanks. The main applications were
petrochemical industry, food industry, water treatment units and parachemical industry.

Unfortunately, this material is readily oxydable even in the atmosphere and in weak environments,
so that its lifetime is often limited to short periods unless it is protected or its initial thickness is
very important.The bad corrosion resistance of CS is due to the fact that iron is able to form a
stable and protecting oxide film onto its surface only when pH is situated between 9.5 and 12 and
temperature near ambient ; such conditions are rarely encountered in practice. In addition,
depending on the actual pH value, oxygen coming from air may play various effects. Indeed, as
soon as pH is lower than about 10, oxygen induces a passivation of aerated zones while dearated
areas become active (they dissolve) due to a strong galvanic coupling ; such a process often occurs
in storage tanks at the interfacial area between the liquid and the atmosphere. Moreover, in caustic
Paper # 41

environments, if iron is able to passivate when pH is higher than 12, it corrodes rapidly at pH
higher than 13 either due to uniform corrosion or to caustic cracking, depending on temperature
and residual stresses.

In conclusion, CS is generally not corrosion resistant enough so that it has to be protected either by
means of electrochemical techniques (cathodic protection by sacrificial anodes or applied current)
or by means of coatings. The both techniques are more or less efficient and necessitate a close
control and regular maintenance, without having always a sufficient safety margin. This justifies
the growth of stainless steels use for storage tanks now.

STEPS OF THE COST ANALYSIS STUDY

Calculation of the minimum thickness value

- Mechanical properties :

Study and fabrication of low internal pressure storage tanks are governed by rules and standards
which take into account provisions considered as minimal towards safety. These rules concern
notably design and dimensioning of constitutive elements of the storage tanks like shell, bottom,
roof, accesoories (piping, flanges, nozzles, openings, ladder ...).

Originally, these standards have been developped for the storage of oil and oil based products but
they may be adopted with equal safety and economy by other industries and for the storage of other
products. The main concerned applications are food industry, chemical industry and water
treatment units.

The most well known and most widely used standards for designing cylindrical storage tanks are
the followings :
- CODRES standard (French)
- API 650 standard (American)
- BS 2654 standard (British)
- DIN 4119 standard (German)
Concerning the wall plates dimensioning, the standards specify a minimal thickness which depends
on the tank part considered and on the tank dimensions, the characteristics and the height of the
fluid stored, and the mechanical properties of the material used (yield strength, tensile strength,
Young modulus).

The rules which specify the minimum shell plate thickness for the CODRES and API 650 standards
are the followings :

• CODRES : ev(i)= [ρ . G (H(i) – 0,3) + P] . 10E-6 . D +c

where 2.f

ev(i) is the minimum thickness for the course under consideration (in mm)
ρ is the maximum density of the fluid stored (in kg/cu.m)
G is the gravitational acceleration (in m/sq.s)
H(i) is the distance from the bottom of the course under consideration to the maximum liquid
height (in m)
Paper # 41

P is the design pressure (in Pa)

D is the tank diameter (in mm)
f is the allowable design stress (in Mpa)
c is the corrosion allowance (in mm)

• API : 2.6D(H-1)G 2.6D(H-1)

Td = Sd + CA Tt = St
where
Td and Tt are respectively the design shell thickness and the hydrostatic test shell thickness (in
inches)
D is the nominal tank diameter (in feet)
G is the design specific gravity of the liquid to be stored
Sd is the allowable stress for the design conditions (in lb/sq.in)
St is the allowable stress for the hydrostatic test condition (in lb/sq.in)
CA is the corrosion allowance (in inches)
The stress allowance specified in the above mentioned formulas take into account the mechanical
properties of the material used for the tank manufacture. According to the different standards, it is
defined according to the following rules:

• CODRES : f = the lesser of 260 or 2/3 of the yield strength

• API :
- for carbon steels : Sd = the lesser of 2/3 of the yield strength or 2/5 of the tensile strength
St = the lesser of 3/4 of the yield strength or 3/7 of the tensile strength
- for austenitic stainless steels:
Sd = the lesser of 0.3 of the yield strength or 0.9 of the tensile strength

CODRES and API allowable stress values for various CS and ASS are listed in table 1.

Tab.1 : Allowable stress values for various carbon steels and austenitic stainless steels
Material CODRES API 650
f (psi) Sd (psi) St (psi)
A516 gr 60 21,300 21,300 24,000
A516 gr 70 25,200 25,300 28,500
304L 19,300 21,000 22,500
316L 21,800 21,000 22,500
317LNM 28,100 24,000 (*) 27,000 (*)
UNS N08904 23,700 21,300 (*) 27,900 (*)
UNS 31 266 (**) 37,700 28,500 (*) 50,400 (*)
* extrapolated values
** UR B66 : USINOR INDUSTEEL tradename : 24Cr – 22Ni – 6 Mo- 2W – 1.5 Cu – 3 Mn - 0.4N

Up to now, the API 650 standard does not take into account DSS. This standard covers only the
austenitic stainless steels 304, 304L, 316, 316L, 317 and 317L since the 1995 edition.
Paper # 41

For the DSS allowable stress determination, following the API 650, the costs comparison
programme which has been developped calculates an extrapolated value following the two modes,
on the one hand with the formulas used for CS, on the other hand with the formulas used for ASS,
and let the user the possibility to select either the CS rules or the ASS rules.

The extrapolated allowable stress values for various DSS are listed in table 2.

Tab.2 : Allowable stress values for various duplex stainless steels.

Material CODRES API 650 (*)
Allowable stresses Allowable stresses
calculated from carbon calculated from austenitic
steel formulas stainless steel formulas
f (psi) Sd (psi) St (psi) Sd (psi) St (psi)
UNS S32 304 37,700 34,800 37,300 26,100 52,200
UNS S31 803 37,700 36,000 38,600 27,000 58,500
UNS S32 520 (**) 37,700 44,000 47,100 33,000 72,000
* extrapolated values
** UR 52N+ (USINOR INDUSTEEL tradename) : 25 Cr – 7 Ni – 3.5 Mo – 1.5 Cu – 0.25N)

For the manufacturing of storage tanks, the use of materials with high mechanical properties as
DSS allows in many cases to reduce the wall thickness, notably for the shell plates. The thickness
reduction generates savings at various levels. The more important cost reducings are in relation
with material cost, welding cost and forming cost but the biggest savings are definitely due to an
important reduction of welding time. The weight saving induces also a decrease of certain indirect
costs, as plates transport cost or crane renting cost.

- Corrosion Resistance

The calculation rules which define a minimum wall thickness include a corrosion allowance which
depends both on the general corrosion resistance properties of the material and on the predicted life
time of the tank. The corrosion allowance thickness will be variable depending on whether an
internal coating will be applied or not, and according to the steel grade used to build the tank.

Due to its low corrosion resistance in most media, even in weakly corrosive environments, carbon
steel needs an internal coating to protect it. Several parameters such as chemical aggressivity of the
stored products (components concentration, impurities, pH…) and storage temperature have to be
considered for choosing the type of coating, which can be simply an epoxy painting or more
resistant and expensive coating systems such as butyl rubber lining or resin bonded glass coating.
Moreover, the fact that carbon steel is readily oxydable makes it unsuitable for atmospheric
exposure and implies that a protection painting should be applied on the external surfaces.

Nevertheless, internal coating usage does not exclude the necessity of a corrosion allowance for
carbon steels. In effect, lining permeability, presence of porosities or defects developping along
service may induce locally a rapid corrosion of the CS. As a result, for safety reasons, it is
necessary to apply an additional thickness on CS, notably on the shell top where the degradation
risk of the lining is often the most important due to either condensation of agressive species or
differential aeration processes. Indeed, coating damage appears on the interfacial zone between the
Paper # 41

stored liquid and the atmosphere. This leads to frequent repairs of coatings and implies to include a
corrosion allowance for the base material made of carbon steel.

Because of their high corrosion resistance in a lot of media due to the formation of a passive film at
their outer surface, ASS and DSS do not need any internal coating to protect them from the
agressiveness of the stored product. Besides, for specific applications as water treatment or food
industry, stainless steels provide a clean and hygienic surface.

The storage conditions and the medium aggressivity must be properly assessed in order to select
the better grade of stainless steel. The designer must consider the corrosion type that might be
encountered. If only general corrosion may occur, a corrosion allowance depending on the
corrosion rate of the material and the required life time must be added to the minimum calculated
plate thickness. When the chemical environment can lead to a risk of localised corrosion such as
crevice, pitting or stress corrosion, the designer will choose a stainless steel grade completely
resistant to corrosion in the considered environment. In case of crevice corrosion risk, an extra
thickness may be applied to the minimum calculated thickness.

Another interest of the stainless steel use for storage tank construction is their very high resistance
to atmospheric corrosion when appearance of the exterior surfaces constitute an important factor.
ASS and DSS can retain their bright appearance under atmospheric exposure for many years and
do not need any external painting. In addition, it is quite easy to decorate the tanks by drawing art
pictures directly onto the external surface using grinding techniques ; when properly conducted
then passivated by diluted nitric acid solution, such pictures may last for decades without any
maintenance which is never the case for painted decorations.

- Cost Analysis for Fabrication

The configuration holded for the cost comparison programme corresponds to a vertical, cylindrical
tank, with flat bottom and self-supporting roof . The roof designed without supporting structure can
be conical or spheroidal and the bottom have a ring of annular plates.

The total investment cost is calculated in adding the costs for materials, fabrication and installation
. In a first time, in order to simplify the calculation, only the manufacture of the main components
(shell, bottom, roof) corresponding to the tank structure have been taken into account. All the
accessories such as piping, flanges, openings, ladder are not integrated into the investment cost.
The capital cost are decomposed as follow :

• material cost : it corresponds to the plate costs, depending on the total calculated weight. The
plate thickness is determined using the selected code (CODRES or API) and the basic parameters
like tank dimensions, fluid density and corrosion allowance. For CS, the nominal shell plate
thickness may be increased of 25% in order to prevent cracking of brittle coatings as a consequence
of lack of rigidity of the base material. Moreover, the plate dimensions are optimized in accordance
with the maximum dimensions of the plates which can be produced in USINOR INDUSTEEL
works.

• cutting and forming costs : these fabrication costs include shell plates and roof plates forming.
Roof forming costs include plate cutting, spherical cap welding, spherical cap and segments
pressing, assembling, edge preparation and final cutting, dimensional control and packing.
Paper # 41

Compared to CS, stainless steels forming leads to an extra cost due to slightly higher welding costs
and higher cutting costs, and for duplex grades higher pressing costs in relation with their high
mechanical properties.

• welding cost: the welding process used is coating electrode, which correspond to a typical
welding process for field construction. The welding operations include edges preparation, dye-
penetrant control, installation, welding (including labor time and filler metal cost), grinding,
backing pass and control operations. A multipying factor 1,15 is applied to welding time for duplex
stainless steels.

Due to their high mechanical properties, duplex grades can provide economic benefits through
welding operations. Indeed, the wall thickness reduction permits to use less filler metal and to
reduce labor time. Besides, handle and installation of the plates are easier due to the use of lighter
components.

• coating costs: internal and external protective coatings can be used to protect the tank surfaces,
depending on the steel grade selected, the stored product and the external environment.

For internal coating, a choice between several types of linings such as for example vinylester epoxy
resin or rubber butyl is offered to the user. For CS, an extra thickness of about 25% can be applied
to increase rigidity. The coating cost depending on the total coated area includes surface
preparation, material cost, labour cost and control (of thickness, porosity, hardness, welds …).

The protection of external surfaces of CS tanks must be ensured by painting. The successive
operations in order to obtain high-quality coating able to protect durably the tank surfaces consist
in surface preparation (grinding, zincing), and applying of primer, reinforcing and finishing coats.

According to the environment, external painting may be applied on stainless steel tank. Generally,
stainless steel grades do not need any external protection. Nevertheless, painting may be used when
severe conditions are encountered (marine atmosphere for seaside buildings made of low alloyed
stainless steels). In fact, most often, the selection of a higher corrosion resistant grade is not more
expensive than using a basic stainless steel with painting. Whatever, painting costs are less
important for stainless than for CS because they require more simple surface preparation (only
wall sanding and applying of primer and finish coats).

Coating cost constitutes an important part of the total investment cost (from 40% to 65%
depending on the kind of lining) so that selecting stainless steels which do not need to be coated
lead to very important economical benefits. The biggest capacity tank, the highest savings.

• pickling cost : this operation concerns only stainless steel tanks which should be decontaminated
after all the manufacturing and erecting operations. For the internal surfaces, pickling cost includes
cleaning, pickling, passivation, rinsing and effluents treatment. Concerning the external surfaces,
only welded joints have to be pickled.

Pickling operation constitutes an extra cost for stainless steel tanks, but in fact this cost is much
lower than cost induced by the coating operations on CS.

It is important to stress that all considered costs were obtained after extensive and deep discussions
with specialists of each operation. Coating costs are estimated by surface unit and labor costs can
be easily adapted according to the country where the tanks will be made.
Paper # 41

- Life Cycle Cost (LCC)

For a pertinent comparison between alternative materials of construction, the LCC should be
considered. This approach implies to assessing the investment costs and the maintenance costs over
the whole life of the tank.

Maintenance costs are mainly related to CS tanks and more precisely to internal and external
coatings since these organic based components are sensitive to ageing in atmosphere and
chemicals. Stainless steels are virtually immune if they have been correctly selected.

Maintenance costs should be evaluated in terms of :

- inspection frequency
- repair or replacement of coatings : industrial experiences showed that external painting must be
completly replaced at regular periods with a maximum periodicity of 10 years. On the other hand,
maintenance operations on internal coatings correspond often to local repairs but this induces extra
costs compared to the initial coating cost. Indeed, operations to be conducted before repair include
full cleaning of the tank, scaffolding erection, installation of lighting and so on, like if a whole
replacement of the coating had to be done.The periodicity depends on the actual local agressiveness
of the stored product
- production loss : when tanks are completely integrated in the production line, maintenance cost
operations are increased due to the loss of production. Such a loss can be very high depending of
the type of production. Very often, some tanks have to be duplicate in order to avoid production
loss, but in this case, this increases investment costs. So, it it obvious that selecting a suitable
stainless steel instead of a CS tank is a better solution.

LCC analysis of several industrial plants showed that maintenance cost of coated CS tank over its
whole life represents considerable expenses which can be, for a long life time, much higher than
initial capital cost. On the other hand, stainless steel use generally leads to suppress maintenance
cost and needs only regular inspections.

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS SOFTWARE

An Excel® based software has been developped in order to calculate and to compare the LCC of
tanks for different materials.

As soon as he has defined the basic tank data corresponding to its needs, the user has to enter the
following parameters in any order :
- tank dimensions (capacity, tank diameter, roof slope for conical roof, cap diameter and R/D
ratio for spheroidal roof)
- fluid density
- life cycle
- country, currency rate
- materials (grades, corrosion rate, material price, welding material price)
- calculation mode for duplex allowable stress
- plates dimensions (for each part of the tank)
- pressure : design pressure, loading (external tempory loading, snow effect)
- internal coating characteristics (tank parts coated, choice of extra thickness for rigidity, kind of
liner, liner price)
Paper # 41

- external painting characteristics

- maintenance (frequency, repared surface %, production shortage, extra cost)
- labour costs
- indirect costs like transportation, erection (scaffolding erection, crane renting)
As soon as these parameters have been validated, total investment cost, LCC and detailed cost data
concerning all manufacturing operations and maintenance appear on the screen in a few seconds.
Tabulated form or graph form may be selected.

Easy accessibility to parameters change makes this software very effective to conduct optimization
of the tank dimensions. An example of simulation showing LCC for four materials is presented
here-under ; the first screen picture of the software including the main parameters is presented in
Fig. 1.

COST COMPARISON FOR STORAGE TANKS

Country France Exchange rate US $ vs FF

Tank capacity 6 000 (m3) Shell height 24 (m)

Tank diameter 18 (m) Roof design Spheroidal roof tank
- Welding
Fluid density 1.2 - Forming
- Externa Painting
Materials Grade Corr. Rate Life cycle (1 year minimum) 25 (year)
(mm/yr) - Internal Coating

N°1 4 0 - Thickness
A 516 gr
N°2 60
316L 2 0 Allowable stress 2
Stainless Steel - Total Costs
N°3 UR35N7 0 for Duplex Standard
N°4 UR45N
8 0
N°5 13 0
N°6 13 0

Graph
Graph 2 materials 3 materials 4 materials 5 materials 6 materials
2 materials 3 materials 4 materials 5 materials 6 materials

Fig. 1 : Main screen of the « CALRES » software

A516 gr 60 CS coated with vinylester epoxy resin inside and painted outside is compared with non
coated 316L austenitic stainless steel, UR 35N (UNS S32304) and UR 45N (UNS S31803) duplex
stainless steels. The tank of 6 000 m3 capacity (18 m diameter, 24 m height) is designed for 25
years service life. Maintenance and repair are planned with 5 years frequency (20% repared surface
for each maintenance period) for the internal coating and 10 years frequency for external painting.

Table 3 and Fig.2 show the results of various costs including investment and LCCs for each of the
four materials : the calculation was done using the following costs for plates (FF/kg) : 3,8 for CS,
14 for 316L, 13,5 for UNS 32 304 and 18 for UNS 31 803. These costs can be easily modified by
the user. No extra thickness was taken into account for CS to prevent brittleness of the internal
coating ; this option is very beneficial for the cost of the CS tank. The cost for internal coating was
900 FF /m2. The considered labor costs were 220 FF for construction, 245 FF for welding and 230
FF for control.
Paper # 41

Table 3 : Sum-up of the main costs for 4 different materials.

UNIT : 1000 FF A 516 gr 60 316L UR35N UR45N

Material cost 513 1885 1566 2086

Forming cost 188 221 227 227

Welding cost 1566 1638 1579 1560

Pickling cost 0 292 370 370

Coating + Painting cost 2164 0 0 0

Total investment cost 4431 4036 3742 4243

Maintenance cost 2925 0 0 0

Life cycle cost 7356 4036 3742 4243

These results demonstrate that the use of stainless steels for building stainless storage tanks does
not induce investment costs higher than those for CS. More particularly, the use of basic duplex
grade UNS 32 304 / UR 35N leads to about 15% savings.

Cost
In COST COMPARISON
1 000 FF

7800

6500

5200
Material cost
Forming cost
3900 Welding cost
Pickling cost
Coating + Painting cost
2600 Total investment cost
Maintenance cost
Life cycle cost
1300

0
A 516 gr 60 316L UR35N UR45N
Materials

Fig.2 – Screen of the costs calculation.

Considering LCC , it appears that stainless steels are much more competitive than coated CS even
when considering the very corrosion resistant UNS 31 803/UR45N duplex grade.
Paper # 41

CONCLUSION

Due to a lack of corrosion resistance in many environments, CS tanks need to be protected by

painting on their external surface and coatings on their internal surface. This implies heavy
additionnal costs, especially in modern developped countries where labor costs are important.
Moreover, coatings often need regular maintenance operations which, added to production shortage
lead to a further cost increase.

Stainless steels in general are much more corrosion resistant than CS so that painting and coating
are not necessary. Besides, selecting nitrogen containing stainless steels and more precisely duplex
stainless steels allow , thanks to their high mechnical properties , to reduce the wall thickness of the
tanks even though some calculation codes do not permit to take full advantage of these properties.
Nevertheless, cost analysis showed that not
only the wall thickness reduction but much
more savings related to welding operations
(less weld material and reduced labor time)
induced by the lower thickness account for
important reduction of investment costs.
Indirect costs like transportation and erection
are also saved thanks to weight reduction.
A software taking into account the
methodology of calculation described in the
present paper has been designed for the
French « CODRES » and the US « API »
codes. Other codes will be introduced in the
near future. As soon as the main parameters
have been introduced in the main screens,
investment and LCC comparison for up to 6
materials appear at the user’s fingertip in
secondes together with detailed cost data. In
addition, the sofware permits further cost
savings since it optimizes the dimensions of
the tank taking into account the initial size of
as produced industrial plates.
Fig. 3- UNS 32 304 and 31 803 Kraft Liquor Tanks (by
courtesy of SUNDS DEFIBRATOR, Finland).

Adding savings due to the absence of coatings to savings due to the better corrosion resistance of
stainless steels lead to final investment costs which appeared very competitive compared to coated
CS.

Among stainless stels, duplex grades thanks to their higher yield strength are even more cost
effective than austenitics.
If one consider the LCC, our analysis clearly demonstrated that CS is never competitive, even if
compared to the very corrosion resistant UNS 31803/UR 45N grade. Such an advantage provided
by duplex grades is furthermore increased if production shortages are taken into account.
Paper # 41

Numerous storage tanks made of duplex grades UNS 32304 and 31803 were built these last years
for application in pulp and paper and chemical industry in replacement of coated CS. Several actual
cost analysis conducted by end users quite confirmed the cost benefits induced by using duplex
stainless steels instead of coated CS tanks. Particularly, investment costs were actually found to be
comparable in the worst cases and generally lower for UNS 32304 grade. After only 2 or 3 years
service, UNS 32304 and even 31803 were generally found to be cost much cheaper since
maintenance operations were completely avoided.

REFERENCES

CODRES, Code français de construction des réservoirs cylindriques verticaux en acier, publié par
U.I.F.P., 4 Avenue Hoche, 75 008 Paris, France et S.N.C.T., Défense 1 – Cedex 72, 92 038 Paris
La Défense, France. Edition 1991.
API Standard 650, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C.
20005-4070, USA,. Ninth Edition, July 1993.