6 CONCRETE REPAIR BULLETIN MARCH/APRIL 2003

Evaluation and Repair of a

Liquid Sulphur Holding Tank
By Nick Trovato, MEng, PEng
R RR RR
einforced concrete structures have been in use
for many years in different applications. These
structures can take a variety of shapes and sizes
and can be designed to support many types of
load conditions. In most cases, these structures can
perform well for decades with relatively little or
no maintenance. In industrial facilities, however,
these structures are subjected to a variety of adverse
conditions. Exposure to the elements, thermal
changes, and acid attacks are not uncommon. The
structures in these facilities must accommodate
these various exposures.
Reinforced concrete tanks are used in many gas
plants to contain liquid sulphur. These tanks are
usually buried so that the roof and only a small
portion of the walls are exposed. The size and
structural framing of these tanks can vary.
The sulphur temperatures can range between
120and 200 C, resulting in significant thermal
stresses in the structure. The tanks are drained
and filled daily, causing a cyclical change in load
and temperature. Also, the sulphur vapor can
combine with moisture to create a sulphuric or a
sulphurous acid. This combination of high acidity
and high temperature results in an extremely
aggressive and corrosive environment. Coatings
inside the tank are typically not used, as they
cannot withstand the combined effects of high
temperature, acid attack, and erosion while still
maintaining flexibility to bridge small cracks that
can form in the concrete. Subsequently, the
concrete is subjected to attack, which can lead to
deterioration of the structure.
The following case study presents the results
of Read J ones Christoffersen Ltd.s evaluations and
repairs of a particular sulphur tank located in a gas
plant in central Alberta. The tank was constructed
in 1978 and we have been monitoring the condition
of the structure since 1993. We undertook repairs
in 1993 and are presenting our findings with respect
to the ongoing deterioration of the structure and
the performance of the repairs.
Evaluation of the Structure
To assess the condition of the tank, a thorough
evaluation was performed. The evaluation deter-
mined the tanks structural condition, the need for
repair or maintenance, and provided an indication
as to the safety and expected remaining service life
of the structure. The testing consisted of:
A visual inspection of the exterior exposed
elements to determine if there were any obvious
signs of distress, deflection, or deterioration in
the structure;
A thorough inspection of the interior of the tank
to determine the condition of the structure. This
is essential as we found that the tanks can
appear to be in very good condition on the
outside but could be suffering extreme structural
distress on the inside. This was particularly
evident on the underside of the roof structure and
the interior surfaces of the upper portion of the
walls where exposure to acid attack is greatest;
Chain drag testing of the roof surface and
hammer sounding of vertical and soffit areas
on the interior to locate where concrete delami-
nation had occurred;
Selective concrete removal to examine the
condition of the underlying reinforcing steel;
Materials testing to determine concrete compres-
sive strength, air entrainment, cement type, and
depth of sulphur penetration in the concrete;
Drawing review to obtain pertinent information
on the structure such as specified concrete cover,
reinforcing details, cement type, and design
criteria to determine critical areas of reinforcement
and how the structure was intended to perform; and
A design review to determine whether the
existing level of deterioration has reduced
the load-carrying capacity to where safety is
compromised and to establish possible causes
for any observed excessive deflection or cracking.
Description and History
of Structure
The sulphur tank in this study was constructed
in 1978 and is 50 m (164 ft) long, 19 m (62 ft)
wide, and 4.6 m(15 ft) deep. The lower 3.6 m(11.8 ft)
of the tank is buried, with only the roof and 1 m
(3.3 ft) of wall structure exposed. The structure
is supported on a large 450 mm (1.5 ft) thick
concrete pad, which acts as the floor slab and
foundation. The roof is a 300 mm (1 ft) flat slab
with 150 mm (6 in.) drop panels supported on
MARCH/APRIL 2003 CONCRETE REPAIR BULLETIN 7
450 mm (1.5 ft) foundation walls
and two interior rows of concrete
columns spaced at approximately
6500 mm (21 ft) centers. In 1982,
an explosion in the tank required
replacement of the roof and upper
portion of the walls.
Concrete deterioration was
evident during a 1988 internal
inspection. A sprayed concrete
(shotcrete) was applied by the
owners at that time to repair these
areas. The next internal inspection
was performed in 1990 and it was
noted that these repairs had
failed. Shotcrete repairs were again
performed under the direction of
the owners in 1990.
In the spring of 1993, this writer
performed an evaluation of the
tank. At that time, the exterior
structure displayed some cracking;
however, it generally appeared to
be in good condition. Chain drag
testing of the roof did not reveal
any significant deterioration.
An internal inspection of the
tank uncovered considerable
corrosion and concrete spalling of
the upper portions of the wall and
areas on the underside of the roof
slab (Fig. 1). This corresponded
with the region within the vapor
space, where sulphur vapors and
moisture combine to form a highly
acidic environment. Approxi-
mately 10% of the roof slab and
40% of the wall surfaces had signs
of deterioration. The shotcrete
repairs performed in 1990 had
totally failed. The condition of
the exposed reinforcing bars was
variable. In some areas, the rein-
forcing bars were corroded through
the entire cross section, while in
other areas, the exposed reinforcing
bars were in excellent condition, with no loss of
cross section.
Selective removal of the concrete around the
protected reinforcing bars determined that the
concrete cover varied from 20 to 40 mm (0.8 to
1.6 in.) and that the bars were typically in
good condition.
There was a loss of cement paste and exposed
aggregate in the underside of the roof and portions
of the wall (Fig. 2). This was relatively uniform
and we did not observe any exposed reinforcing
steel in these areas.
Based on the deterioration evident, it was
apparent that portions of the structure were unsafe,
particularly at the roof slab where there was
concern for its ability to support the significant
piping and equipment situated on the tank. It was
necessary to develop a repair program that would:
Restore the load-carrying capacity of the structure
to a safe condition;
Perform in a very aggressive environment for a
minimum specified period of time;
Meet the owners budget requirements; and
Meet the owners time constraints.
Figure 1: Exposed and corroded reinforcing steel in upper portion of wall
Figure 2: Exposed aggregate at underside of roof
8 CONCRETE REPAIR BULLETIN MARCH/APRIL 2003
Repair Methods and Materials
It is our experience that the level of deterior-
ation evident in reinforced concrete structures
is greatly affected by the quality of concrete
used during construction. Highly durable concrete,
although not immune to damage, was generally
found to perform better and last longer than
structures where the concrete was highly permeable
or of poor quality.
1
Poor workmanship such as
improper consolidation or insufficient concrete
cover can also result in premature deterioration.
In this project, the repairs previously completed
for the owners had failed after a short time. These
repairs consisted of a spray-applied concrete and
vertical patch materials placed over the damaged
areas. In some cases, mechanical fasteners and
welded wire mesh were placed in the patch to
anchor the repair materials to the base concrete.
These areas failed due to:
Inadequate surface preparation, resulting in
debonding of the repair materials;
Improper consolidation and/or poor workmanship;
I mproper selection of repair materials and
procedures;
Corrosion of the reinforcing steel beneath the
repair materials; and
Lack of understanding regarding the behavior
of the structure under appl i ed l oads and
thermal stress.
The 1993 repair program consisted of partial
and total replacement of the concrete members
where structural damage was noted. Areas of
exposed aggregate were not repaired during this
program, as the deterioration evident had not
affected the load-carrying capacity of the structure.
In the partial repair areas, the concrete was
removed beyond the inner layer of reinforcing steel
and to a sound concrete substrate (Fig. 3). The
existing, exposed steel was replaced with new
steel where possible. The remaining reinforcing
steel was sandblasted clean of any cement and
corrosion product. The exposed concrete surfaces
in the repair area were thoroughly cleaned of loose
materials and contaminants to provide a suitable
surface for bond with the new repair materials.
Consideration was given to using high-alumina
cement as a repair material. High-alumina cement
has been used in the construction of similar tanks
although this material can be costly, relative to a
regular portland cement mixture. During the planning
stages of the repair program, a cost-benefit analysis
was performed based on the owners requirement
for an expected 15 to 20 year life for the structure.
On this basis, it was decided to repair the
structure using a highly durable, low permeability
concrete.
2
The concrete mixture design had the
following properties:
Type 50 sulphate resistant cement;
Low water-cement ratio of 0.40 (maximum);
8% silica fume;
Air entrainment;
20 mm (0.8 in.) maximum aggregate size;
Low slump (50 mm [ 2 in.] maximum); and
Minimum 28-day compressive strength of
35 MPa (5000 psi).
To increase the protection to the reinforcing
steel, a minimum concrete cover of 75 mm (3 in.)
was provided in the repair areas.
Lined formwork was used to provide a smooth
interior surface and to improve the durability of
the repairs. Chairing the steel
to the interior surface was not
permitted to maintain the
smooth concrete surface and
to prevent any exposed steel
from occurring on the interior
surface where exposure to the
liquid sulphur and vapors
could occur.
Proper curi ng of the
repair materials improves the
performance of the concrete.
Extended curing periods were
not possible due to time
constraints on the plant shut-
down; therefore, curing periods
varied from 7 days for the
vertical repairs to 14 days for
the areas of slab replacement.
The total repair cost for
the project was approxi-
mately $400,000 (in 1993
Canadian dollars).
Figure 3: Patch preparation showing extent of concrete removal
MARCH/APRIL 2003 CONCRETE REPAIR BULLETIN 9
Nick Trovato, MEng, PEng, has
been actively involved in the
evaluation and restoration of
numerous commercial and
industrial structures. He is
the Managing Principal of
Edmontons Building Science
and Restoration Division, Read
Jones Christoffersen Ltd., a national consulting
firm providing structural design, evaluation and
restoration services. Trovato can be contacted
at (780) 452-2325, e-mail: [email protected].
Performance
of Repairs
The repairs performed in
1993 were examined in 1996
and 2000 during plant shut-
downs. After 7 years of service,
the repairs have performed
exceptionally well. We have
noted the following:
The original concrete is
continuing to show signs of
deterioration and loss of
cement paste. Exposed
aggregate was noted in
many areas. Portions of the
existing drop panels were
also spalled from the under-
side of the roof slab;
I n the repair areas, the
concrete surface was in
excellent condition with
only localized areas where
minimal loss of surface
paste was observed (Fig. 4);
Some fine cracks were noted in the repair
areas. These appeared to be due to restrained
shrinkage and thermal stress in the structure.
The repair areas were sound and performing
as intended;
Some loss of surface paste was noted in local-
ized areas of the underside of the roof slab,
adjacent to steam injectors. It was determined
that pressurized steam injected into the tank
would deflect off the surface of the sulphur and
abrade the concrete in the vicinity of the injectors.
These injectors were installed after the 1993
repair program and the damage was noted in
1996. The lines were relocated in 1996, and during
our 2000 inspection, there did not appear to be
further deterioration in these areas; and
Approximately six small areas of debonded
concrete (less than 0.1 m
2
[ 1 ft
2
] in area) were
detected in the repair areas in 1996. These were
at the edges of repairs and may have been due
to shrinkage of the patches or from impact at
the time the formwork was removed. There were
no noticeable changes in these areas during our
2000 inspection.
Satisfied Owner
Good performance of reinforced concrete
structures exposed to aggressive environments can
be achieved with the use of highly durable, low
permeability concretes and by paying careful
attention to details. Consideration must be given to:
The use of good quality concrete;
Attention to construction details;
Figure 4: Area of repair in excellent condition after seven years of service
Increased concrete cover;
Design and detailing of the reinforcing steel to
minimize cracking; and
Proper concrete curing.
Read J ones Christoffersen Ltd. has applied these
methods to a number of other sulphur tanks with
similar results. This case study indicates that
under extremely aggressive environments, proper
use of concrete can result in a repair that is
durable and economical. In this case, the repairs
are expected to meet or exceed the owners
expectations for performance.
References
1. ACI Committee 222, Corrosion of Metals in Concrete
(ACI 222R-89), American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., 1989, 30 pp.
2. CSA Committee S413, CAN/CSA-S413-94, Parking
StructuresStructures Design, Canadian Standards Associ-
ation, Ontario, Canada, 1994, 103 pp.