J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
(2010) 10:69–76
DOI 10.1007/s11668-009-9322-2
FEATURE
Corrosion of Residential Aboveground Heating Oil Tanks:
An Overview
Marina Banuta • Isabelle Tarquini
Submitted: 28 September 2009 / in revised form: 18 December 2009 / Published online: 7 January 2010

ASM International 2010
Abstract Three basic modes of failure are known for oil
tanks: manufacturing defects, mechanical damage, and
corrosion. Most of the tanks currently in use and manu-
factured in or prior to the 90s, are subject to leaking caused
by internal corrosion. Corrosion-induced leakage always
results in environmental damage by underground and/or
aboveground oil contamination. Considering the costs
related to decontamination and to replacement of residen-
tial tanks, the possibility of corrosion should be carefully
addressed. To accomplish this task, the most common
issues related to tank corrosion must be recognized and
understood. This article is an overview of the corrosion
mechanisms in aboveground residential tanks made of non-
coated mild steel.
Keywords Pitting corrosion
Oil tanks
Water

Heating oil
Introduction
Heating oil tanks are very popular components of resi-
dential heating systems in North-America. Their life
service usually ranges between 10 and 15 years but can be
significantly longer. However, in some cases premature
shell perforation occurred after only one to two years of
service [1]. The great majority of the residential tank leaks
evaluated becomes the object of failure analysis because of
the need to assess the responsibility for the spilling. Even
though heating oil tank leakages are seldom a spectacular
M. Banuta (&)
I. Tarquini
SGS Canada, Materials Engineering, Montreal, QC, Canada
e-mail: marina.banuta@sgs.com
event, spilling from residential tanks may cause material
and environmental damage and can affect lives and homes.
This article will try to provide insight into the degradation
phenomena and explain why tanks fail and what to do to
minimize the unwanted leakage. Unfortunately, the failure
analyst is (almost) always called late to failures that have
potential litigations, thus, it is very difficult to achieve the
goal of prevention. However, the authors sincerely hope
that after reading this article, some one will take time to
spread the message and advice relatives, friends, or
neighbors who possess one of these tanks and begin the use
of ‘‘backyard prevention technologies.’’
Figure 1 shows a sketch of an aboveground heating oil
residential tank, manufactured according to Canadian
standard CAN/ULC-S602: Aboveground Steel Tanks for
Fuel Oil and Lubricating Oil. While the latest version of
this standard was released in 2003, it must be noted that the
great majority of the tanks still in use were made in
accordance to the 1992 version, thus demonstrating that
tank lifetimes generally exceed 10 years. The most com-
mon residential tank has a maximum nominal capacity of
1200 l, and a minimum shell thickness of about 2 mm
(0.078 in.). The tank is made of welding quality mild steel,
in accordance with the latest edition of ASTM A569 and/or
CAN3-G40.21M 230G or a recognized equivalent. Usually
having an obround shape, a residential tank is composed of
a metallic shell (that may be fabricated from two or three
pieces of steel sheet) welded to two heads (that must be
fabricated from not more than one piece of steel). All shell-
and head-welded joints must be in accordance with the
specifications of the above-mentioned standard. A leak test
is performed on every tank, at the end of the manufacturing
process.
The dimensions and locations of the fill, vent, and gauge
are stated in the standard and are shown in Fig. 1. The
123
70
Fig. 1 Schematic representation of a heating oil residential tank
burner supply may be located: (1) below the liquid level
line, (2) in the tank’s head, or (3) in the tank’s bottom. As
will be shown later, the burner supply’s location was
identified as a critical element in the tank service life and
corrosion resistance. Most manufacturers have chosen to
place the burner supply in the tank bottom. As per the
standard specification, every tank shall be equipped with no
less than four support brackets or two cradles of substantial
design and construction. Regardless of the method, the tank
must be rigidly supported. Even though the standard makes
no reference to installation issues, all installation guides
recommend a slope of 1/400 /ft of tank length, with the
burner supply end being lower, in order to facilitate
drainage and oil flow.
Finally, it must be noted that in old tanks the internal
surfaces were bare steel, without any form of corrosion
protection. External surface are usually cleaned and
painted.
Typical Degradation Mode and Causes of Corrosion
in Aboveground Heating Oil Tanks
Three basic modes of failure are known for oil tanks:
manufacturing defects, mechanical damage, and corrosion.
However, the most prevalent cause of failure in above-
ground residential heating oil tanks is internal corrosion
which ultimately leads to the perforation of the shell. The
corrosion mechanism is pitting corrosion, which is a very
insidious process as it causes little material loss and may
not be noticed by visual examination of the metal surface
even when the pit has penetrated deep within the material
and the shell structure is damaged, almost to the point of
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2010) 10:69–76
leakage [2]. Corrosion products often obscure the pits
formation, thus making almost impractical to discover the
shell perforation before leakage. In most cases, internal
corrosion occurs at the tank bottom, and depending on the
installation conditions (indoor or outdoor), external corro-
sion may also occur.
As a form of localized corrosion, pitting corrosion is
generally associated with the presence of a stagnant liquid
on the metallic surfaces. The stagnant liquid usually at a
tank bottom and is a mix of heating oil, sludge, and water.
Even though not readily identifiable, water is almost
always present and plays a significant role in aboveground
tanks corrosion because heating oil and sludge are poor
electrolytes. In our experience with residential above-
ground heating oil tanks, the shell perforation always
occurred at the bottom, in an area containing a ‘‘water
strip’’, which is considered positive proof that water and
sludge were present at the tank bottom some time prior the
leaking. It is important to note that, especially in old tanks,
the design of the tank bottom and the location of the burner
opening are particularly prone to accumulations of water
and sludge. In fact, recent failure analyses of these tanks
pinpointed design as the critical issue in the tanks’ service
life. Because of this observation, the newer designs place
the burner opening directly on the bottom and the accu-
mulations became less frequent.
While the heating oil and sludge mix at the tank bottom
are related to the tank content, water can be considered an
intruder. First, a small quantity of water can be contained in
the heating oil. The maximum water content allowed by the
Canadian standards is 0.05% [3]. When this requirement is
met, water is usually not harmful. However, there are many
ways supplementary water can enter an oil tank. Transfer
of water and sludge from an old tank, which is strictly
prohibited by the manufacturer’s, is one of the most
common way. Indeed, it is considered that new steel tanks
are initially more susceptible to corrosion caused by the
presence of sludge, acids, microorganisms, and water than
are old tanks. Evidently, tank service improves the passive
qualities of the surface film. Transferring oil from an old
tank (the customer wants to use the oil that was left) also
places contaminants in a new steel tank and can result in
premature failure. As an example, the authors were con-
sulted in a case of multiple premature failures which could
be attributed to transfer of the contents of old tanks into
new ones. The service life of the new tanks was under
18 months.
In outdoor tanks, moisture condensation phenomena is
another important source of water, often interrelated to
weather condition, temperature variations, and the location
of the tank. The quantity of water obtained by condensation
may be significant in summer, when most tanks are not
filled to the allowed capacity. In indoor tanks, condensation
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2010) 10:69–76 71

usually occurs when the brand new tank is installed
because new tanks could experience internal condensation
due to temperature variations during transportation or
storage. Finally, additional water can be introduced directly
from the oil truck or through a defective or missing vent
and/or fill cap.
Since water is heavier than oil, it will go to the tank
bottom. The oil above will not allow water evaporation and
as such, water combined with aggressive elements con-
tained by the heating oil, will stay and promote pitting
corrosion. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and chlorine salts
(NaCl, KCl, CaCl2) are commonly contained in heating oil
and represent corrosive species for mild steel. Also, sulfur
coming from oil combines with water to form a highly
corrosive species for the tank shell, sulfuric acid (H2SO4).
Some sources indicate that the sulfuric acid aggressiveness
toward the carbon steel is increased in the presence of
chlorine salts [4, 5].
Microorganisms are another concern in the corrosion of
heating oil tanks, especially microbes producing H2S and
H2SO4 as by-products of their metabolic activities [5].
These acids produced by the microbes will add to the
aggressiveness of the environment and the biofilms created
by the microorganisms at the tank bottom may enable the
formation of strong electrochemical cells which promote a
very localized corrosion and pitting. In our experience,
shell perforations occurred more often than not at the site
of microorganisms’ colonies.
the incident site and none of the connections were present.
Our investigation was conducted in cooperation with
experts representing the other interested parties. This case
study will present a summary of the results of the failure
analysis performed by the authors.
General External Examination
As our measurements indicated, the general dimensions
and the location of gauges, vents, and fills of the failed tank
met the ULC standard requirements (1992 release). The
burner supply was located on one of the heads, at
approximately 70 mm height, once again according to the
applicable standard. No evidence of mechanical damage
was noted.
General external examination showed that the failed
tank was a painted obround domestic fuel tank. The metal
label found on the tank indicates that the tank was fabri-
cated in 1995, by a Canadian manufacturer, according to
standard CAN/ULC-602-M92: ‘‘Standard for Aboveground
Steel Tanks for Fuel and Lubricating Oil.’’ The tank
apparently experienced perforation at the bottom line,
located towards the burner opening side (Figs. 2, 3). In this
area, four round indications with diameters ranging from 1
to 4 mm were noted at the bottom line, in the vicinity of the

Case Study

The authors of this article are often called to give their

opinion in cases involving residential oil tanks, as part of
claim adjusting procedures. Even though the analyzed
tanks came from different manufacturing companies and
from different Canadian regions, they always exhibited the
corrosion issues described above. The following example
will illustrate the typical damage observed in these tanks.

Background

The residential tank presented in this article failed during

winter 2008, in a residence near Montreal, Canada. The
tank was installed indoors, but no information concerning
its installation was provided. At the time of leakage the
tank was 13 years old, having been fabricated in 1995.
According to the manufacturing label attached to the shell,
it had 1135 l capacity and the metal thickness was 2 mm.
After the incident, the tank was emptied by the owner and
kept outdoors for about a month, after which was trans-
ferred in a warehouse. As such, when our team was called
to investigate the cause of failure, the tank was no longer at Fig. 2 General view of the tank bottom line

123
72
Fig. 3 Location and size of the indications noted in the tank’s
damaged area
Fig. 4 Presence of spatters associated with the adjacent welded beads
burner opening (area shown in yellow in Fig. 2). Visually,
only two of them seem to have penetrated the tank’s shell,
being responsible for the leakage, while the others showed
no visible evidence of penetration (Fig. 3).
At several locations, the paint seems to have been
slightly damaged by physical contact with another surface
(Figs. 2, 3), although it was difficult to assess the exact
moment of the damage. Close-up examination of the area
containing the discontinuities found the presence of several
spatters (Fig. 4). They were also noted at another locations
on the tank shell, near welded beads. Spatters are small
metal particles, which are thrown out of the arc during
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2010) 10:69–76
Fig. 5 (a) Image of the corrosion stripe toward the burner side.
(b) Image of the corrosion stripe opposite the burner side
welding and get deposited on the regions around the weld
bead. Although weld spatter is not exactly a weld defect, it
is usually recommended to be avoided and, in case it
happens, it should be cleaned and removed [6].
General Internal Examination
The tank was sampled and cut open with a nibbler machine
to allow full internal visual examination. Visual inspection
of the internal surfaces of the tank revealed the existence of
a corroded strip area over the tank bottom line, fully cov-
ered with thick moist deposits (Fig. 5a, b). The corroded
strip, usually associated with the presence of stagnant
liquid at the tank bottom, has a variable width, being wider
toward the burner side, its size and shape indicating the
tank was inclined toward the burner side (Fig. 5a). As
already explained, this is current practice among the tank
installers companies and its objective is to facilitate the oil
flow to the burner and better drainage.
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2010) 10:69–76 73

Fig. 6 Evidence of pitting corrosion in the corrosion stripe, after

sampling and cleaning the residues

It was also noted that some of the tank content, mixed

with sludge and possibly water, was still present at the
investigation time. The said tank content, as well as the
moist deposit present at the tank bottom line, were sampled
for further analysis. Before starting the sampling of the
Fig. 7 Bottom tank section, near the burner side
damaged area, the surface was cleaned with an industrial
solvent to allow visual examination of the corroded strip at
the tank bottom line. Thus, it was noted that under the
deposit, pitting corrosion was already installed and, at
certain locations, the damage in the tank shell seems rel-
atively profound (Fig. 6). No evidence of corrosion was
noted at locations other than those related to the strip at the
tank bottom.
The section of the tank bottom containing all the iden-
tified discontinuities was cut and divided in four
specimens, one for each party. One sample, consisting of a
transverse section of the tank bottom shell, near the burner
opening side, was transported to our facility for further
analysis (Fig. 7). During the sampling, it was noted that
some of the discontinuities apparently showing no pene-
tration through the tank shell, were in fact clogged with
corrosion products and deposits. They were easily cleared Fig. 8 Close-up view of the external surface of the tank shell, in the
from shell using a metallic pin. damaged area

General Examination of the Tank Sample
General examination was conducted on both external and
internal sides of the tank shell section. Visual examination
of the external tank surface revealed the presence of several
spatters, most of them being covered with paint. Few of
them exhibit shiny metallic surfaces indicating a grinding
effect at the contact with another surface (Fig. 8). The
presence of the previously identified indication # 1 was
confirmed and the existence of a second discontinuity
was noted. The latter became visible only during
low-magnification examination. Although apparently not
completely penetrating the shell, this indication turned into
a hole when low-pressure air was used to clean the adjacent
surface. It was noted that the hole has a perfectly round
shape at the external surface of the shell, which reminds of
the shape of adjacent spatters and may indicate that a
spatter could be at its origin. However, no physical evi-
dence indicates that the corrosion process originated
outside the tank. It was thought that the presence of the
spatter may rather have accelerated the penetration from
the inside.

123
74
Fig. 9 Close-up view of a perforation, looking from inside out
Table 1 Chemical composition of the tank shell
Elements Tank shell, wt% CSA G40.21-M92 Grade 230 G, wt%
C 0.07 0.26 max.
Mn 0.27 1.20 max.
P 0.012 0.050 max.
S 0.004 0.050 max.
Si 0.01 0.40 max.
Low-magnification and visual examination were next
conducted on the internal surface of the tank shell. Closer
view of the affected area showed evidence of corrosion
pits, typically associated with pitting corrosion mecha-
nisms (Fig. 9). Although pitting corrosion in progress is
present over the area formerly covered with moist deposits,
intense corrosion damage is present at the internal surface
of the shell at the location of the two perforations noted
from the outside, which indicates that the perforation
occurred from the inside to outside the tank shell.
Materials
The chemical composition of the tank shell was determined
by spectroscopy chemical analysis. The results, shown in
Table 1, are in accord with the requirements of the
Canadian standard CSA G40.21-M92, for grade 230 G.
Microscopic Examination
Microscopic examination was conducted in the corroded
area of the tank sample, in the area of indication # 1, in
order to validate the corrosion mechanism and to evaluate
the damage magnitude in the shell cross section. The
metallographic cut was performed as to obtain two trans-
verse metallographic specimens, both of which were
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2010) 10:69–76
Fig. 10 General view of the perforation (cross section)
Fig. 11 General view of the shell in a corroded but not penetrated
area
Bakelite mounted and mirror polished. Microetching using
Nital 3% reagent was performed in order to reveal the
details of the microstructure. Figures 10 and 11 show
general images of the analyzed surfaces of the metallo-
graphic specimens.
According to the observations conducted on these
specimens, the tank perforation has indeed been produced
by pitting corrosion, from inside the tank shell to outside.
The original thickness of the shell measured in undamaged
areas was found to be of 2 mm. On the observed speci-
mens, thickness loss of about 50% was revealed in the
shallow pitting area (area not yet penetrated), which indi-
cates in-progress corrosion process.
High-magnification examination in the degraded area
showed that the corrosion progressed in both transverse and
longitudinal directions, according to a typical pitting
corrosion phenomenon (Figs. 12, 13). Finally, the tank
microstructure was found to be composed of ferrite and
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2010) 10:69–76 75

have been contained in the heating oil, along with a mix-

ture of hydrocarbons. Indeed, literature mentions the
presence of some salts, like sodium chlorine (NaCl),
calcium chlorine (CaCl), potassium chlorine (KCl), and
magnesium chlorine (MgCl), in the heating oils [5].
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and microorganisms are equally
present [5]. Sulfur and chlorine are considered as corrosive
species for the mild steel, especially when combined with
water. Moreover, it is thought that the presence of chlorine
salts, like those indicated above, accelerates the corrosion
rate.

Conclusion
Fig. 12 Typical micrograph in the perforation wall (2009)

Considering the typical corrosion damage experienced by

the residential heating oil tanks, as found in all cases
investigated by the authors, it can be noted that the main
cause of failure is the presence of water. Unlike the other
chemicals inherently present in the heating oil, the water
is an intruder. However, most of the sources of water in
residential tanks can be ‘‘user-controlled’’. As such, it is
obvious that owner education could have a significant
impact on the tank service life. From our experience, the
new tanks currently being sold always have enough
documentation to explain to the owners how to properly
install and use their tanks so as to avoid premature
corrosion failure. Literature is also available on the
internet. However, it is common knowledge that very
Fig. 13 Close-up view of a shallow pit (8009)
few of the owners read installation manuals. Unfortu-
nately, since as we come (almost) always late in this
kind of incidents, it is very difficult for us to achieve our
goal in prevention.
Table 2 Sludge chemical analysis
For that reason, the authors sincerely hope that after
Elements Sludge sample, ppm reading this article, some of us will take time to spread the
message and to advice relatives, friends, and neighbors
Ca 1053
that:
Na 776
Cl 95 • If you buy a non-coated tank, avoid those models that
K 144 have the burner supply connection high in the head.
S total 2150 • Never allow full transfer of the content of a old tank in
a new one. Such transfer is one of the best ways to
produce premature corrosion failures in your newly
acquired tank.
network-like pearlite, typically found in normalized struc- • Ensure no condensation water is present in the tank
tures of low-carbon steels (Fig. 13). when you buy it.
• Install the tank as to allow drainage.
Sludge and Deposits Analysis • If you keep your tank outdoors, choose a location where
the temperature gradients are minimum. This will
The sludge sampled on the tank bottom during the cutting, prevent condensation inside your tank and water
was analyzed in order to find evidence of corrosive species. accumulation.
The obtained results are presented in Table 2. • Keep your tank always at the recommended capacity,
There is no doubt these chemicals came from the heat- even in summer, in order to diminish the quantity of
ing oil and from the sludge at the tank bottom. They may condensation water.

123
76
References
1. Banuta, M.: Revue d’un rapport d’étude de corrosion sur un
réservoir de mazout non enterré (Review of a corrosion study of an
aboveground heating oil tank). Company Investigation Report
(2009) (in French)
2. Corrosion: Metal Handbook, vol. 13, 9th edn, p. 113. ASTM
International, Materials Park, OH (1998)
3. CAN/CGSB3.2-1999: Heating Fuel Oil. National Standard of
Canada (2007)
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2010) 10:69–76
4. Corrosion: Metal Handbook, vol. 13, 9th edn, p. 40. ASTM
International, Materials Park, OH (1998)
5. Groysman, A.: Corrosion of aboveground fuel storage tanks.
Mater. Perform. 44(9), 44 (2005)
6. CAN/ULC-S602-M92: Standard for Aboveground Steel Tanks for
Fuel Oil and Lubricating Oil, National Standard of Canada and
Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada, art. 4.1, 3rd edn., 1992