An industry-government collaborative program was carried out with an aim to promoting the acceptance of fracture mechanics-based fitness-for-service assessment methodology for a service-damaged pressure vessel. A collaborative round robin exercise was carried out to predict the fracture behavior of a vessel containing hydrogen damage, fabrication-related lack-of-fusion defects, an artificially induced fatigue crack, and a localized thinned area. The fracture assessment procedures used include the U.S. ASME Material Property Council’s PREFIS Program based on the British Standard (BS) Published Document (PD) 6493, ASME Section XI and The Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) R6 approach, The Welding Institute (TWI) CRACKWISE program (based on BS PD6493 Level 2 approach), a variant of the R6 approach, J-tearing instability approaches, various J-estimation schemes, LEFM approach, and simplified stress analysis. Assessments were compared with the results obtained from a hydrogen-charged burst test of the vessel. Predictions, based on the J-tearing approach, compared well with the actual burst test results. Actual burst pressure was about five times the operating pressure.

Issue Section:
Research Papers
Topics:
Failure, Hydrogen, Pressure vessels, Fracture (Materials), Fracture (Process), Pressure, Vessels, Damage, Fatigue cracks, Fitness-for-service, Governments, Manufacturing, Materials properties, Stress analysis (Engineering), Welding
1.
ADINA, 1992, “Theory and Modelling Guide,” Report ARD 92-8.
2.
ASME B31G-1991, Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines, A Supplement to ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY.
3.
BSI, 1991, Published Document, (PD) 6493, “Guidance on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion Welded Structures,” British Standards Institute.
4.
Buchheim, G. M., et al., 1994, “Update of Fitness-for-Service and Inspection for the Petrochemical Industry,” ASME PVP-Vol. 288, pp. 253–260.
5.
Buchheim, G. M., Osage, D. A., Prager, M., and Warke, W. R., 1993, “Fitness-for-Service and Inspection for the Petrochemical Industry,” ASME PVP-Vol. 261, Service Experience and Life Management: Nuclear, Fossil, and Petrochemical Plants, pp. 245–256.
6.
EPRI, 1981, NP-1931, “An Engineering Approach for Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis,” Project 1237-1.
7.
Hantz, B. F., Sims, J. R., Kenyon, C. T., and Turbak, T. A., 1993, “Fitness for Service: Groove Like Local Thin Areas on Pressure Vessels and Storage Tanks,” ASME PVP-Vol. 252, Plant Systems/Components Aging Management.
8.
Irwin, G. R., et al., 1967, “Basic Aspects of Crack Growth and Fracture,” Naval Research Lab Report 6598, U.S. Dept. of Commerce.
9.
Kiefner, J. F., et al., 1973, “Failure Stress Levels of Flaws in Pressurized Cylinder,” Progress in Flow Growth and Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM STP 536, pp. 461–481.
10.
Merrick, R. D., and Maguire, C. J., 1979, “Methane Blistering of Equipment in High Temperature Hydrogen Service,” No. 30, Corrosion/79, March 12–16, Atlanta Hilton, Atlanta, GA.
11.
Milnes, I., Ainsworth, R. A., and Chele, G. G., 1987, “Predicting the Integrity of Large Diameter Stainless Steel Pipes using R6 Procedures,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 98.
12.
Milnes, I., et al., 1991, “Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects,” Central Electricity Generating Board, UK, CEGB Report R/H/R6-Revision.
13.
NACE, 1977, Standard TM-01-77, “Testing of Materials for Resistance to Sulfide Stress Cracking at Ambient Temperatures,” National Association of Corrosion Engineers.
14.
Oddy, A. S., and McDill, J. N. J., 1995, “Structural Integrity Technology for Petrochemical Vessels,” Report on Task 2—Elasto-Plastic Fracture Assessment of a Flawed Vessel, DSS Contract No. 035a.23440-2-9019, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
15.
Qi-Chao Hong, and Ding-Zhong Feng, 1988, “Investigation on Fatigue Growth Behaviour of External Nozzle Corner Cracks in a Spherical Vessel,” 6th International Conference of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 2, eds., L. Cengdian and R. W. Nichols, Pergamon Press, Sept., pp. 857–864.
16.
Sims, J. R., Hantz, B. F., and Kuehn, K. E., 1992, “A Basis for the Fitness for Service Evaluation of Thin Areas in Pressure Vessels and Storage Tanks,” ASME PVP-Vol. 233, Pressure Vessel Fracture, Fatigue and Life Management.
17.
Turbak, T. A., and Sims, J. R., 1994, “Comparison of Local Thin Area Assessment Methodologies,” ASME PVP-Vol. 288, Service Experience and Reliability Improvement: Nuclear, Fossil and Petrochemical Plants.
18.
TWI, 1994, “CRACKWISE, Fitness-for-Purpose Weld Flaw Assessment,” Microcomputer Software, The Welding Institute.
19.
Zahoor, A., 1991, Ductile Fracture Handbook, EPRI, Vol. 3, pp. 8.2-1–8.2-12.
This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright © 1999
 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
You do not currently have access to this content.