6 tayangan

Diunggah oleh rajeesh

FFS Analysis

- Failure Analysis
- Introduction to Mechanical Properties of Materials.pdf
- 1-s2.0-S014102961630044X-main
- Fabris J Et Al Critical Evaluation of Corn Silo Burst Failure Analysis
- Failures
- ME489 Notes-Slides Abul-Fazal-Arif Ansys-Manual
- IJERTV1IS8295
- LECTURE 5 - CONCRETE STRENGTH.pdf
- ON THE WESTERGAARD METHOD OF CRACK ANALYSIS
- Brazilian Test
- 080509 Term PaperMW
- Discrete Versus Smeared Crack Analysis
- A Review of T-stress and Its Effects in Fracture Mechanics
- 347277446-RILEM-TC-162-TDF-pdf.pdf
- 54f629700cf27d8ed71d64e6
- Thermal-Structural Modeling and Temperat
- Emm Question Bank Unit3
- Corrosion Fatigue
- Fibrillated Microfibers
- LTU-EX-2014-87128534

Anda di halaman 1dari 29

Client: VTTI

Attn: Sony Manikandan

Consulting Engineer, Advanced Engineering

Consulting Engineer, Advanced Engineering

1965 57th Court North Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80301 Phone 303-415-1475 Fax 303-415-1847

www.questintegrity.com

Written permission is required if this report is to be reproduced for promotional purposes or in part. The name of Quest Integrity Group may not

be used in advertising without consent. Any samples received by Quest Integrity in connection with this investigation that are not reclaimed by the

client within 8 weeks of the date of issue of this report will be disposed of.

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

Executive Summary

The purpose of this analysis was to establish that repaired tank 216 owned and operated by VTTI in Fujairah,

UAE is fit for continued service without the need for a hydrostatic test by application of fracture mechanics

technology per API 653 [1]. The tank is to undergo an installation of a new annular ring, new patch plates

on the floor, and a partial replacement of the floor plates.

In accordance with API 653 [1], a hydro test exemption, including a detailed stress analysis and fracture

mechanics assessment, was conducted. The stress analysis identified the locations and magnitudes of the

peak hoop and bending stresses to be used in the fracture mechanics assessment.

The finite element analysis and fracture mechanics calculations showed that the tank is considered fit for

service so long as no defects of critical size exist in the vicinity of new welds. The critical defect sizes

exceeded the defect sizes that would be cause for rejection during inspection. Therefore, the analysis

showed that repairs made to the tank do not require a hydro test based on the guidelines in API 653 [1].

This assessment considered the new stresses resulting from the modifications of the tank as well as the weld

inspections, both of which were necessary to exempt tank 216 from a hydrostatic test. A weld joint

efficiency of 0.85 was assumed for all calculations as a factor of safety on the stress results for the fracture

mechanics assessment.

The results for TK216 can be inferred for TK209/210/211/212/216/217/218 given that all the requirements

listed below are met:

Repairs to these tanks are the same as what was analyzed in this report (replace annular plates,

install floor patch plates, partial replacement of floor plates)

The thickness of the new annular plates are the same as what was analyzed in this report (10 mm)

The new repair welds are done using the same weld procedures as the CTOD sample for TK209

which was tested by Anderson and Associates (see section 3.2 and Appendix A)

The tanks are in similar service (same product and general operating conditions)

The tanks are of the same basic geometry (height and diameter)

The tanks were constructed around the same time and the plates came from the same mill

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

This assessment was based on the provided geometry, loading, and material information. Variations in

loading, method of fabrication, inspection accuracy, and material properties will increase uncertainty in the

results. Loadings not described in the provided information were not included in this assessment. Failure

mechanisms not explicitly listed were not covered by this assessment. Direct assessment of the welds (e.g.

residual stress modeling due to welding), or other failure mechanisms, were outside the scope of this report.

It is up to the operator to determine an appropriate margin of safety based on operational controls, inspection

methodology, and their overall integrity management strategy.

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5

2.1 Shell Analysis ............................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Floor Analysis ............................................................................................................ 6

3.1 Crack Stability Calculations ....................................................................................... 7

3.2 Material Fracture Toughness and Tensile Properties ................................................... 8

3.3 Critical Crack Size Calculations ................................................................................. 9

3.4 Comparison of Fracture Mechanics Results with Inspection........................................ 9

4. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 10

5. References ............................................................................................................................ 11

6. Figures ................................................................................................................................. 12

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

1. Introduction

The purpose of this analysis was to establish that repaired tank 216 owned and operated by VTTI in Fujairah,

UAE is fit for continued service without the need for a hydrostatic test by application of fracture mechanics

technology per API 653 [1]. The tank is to undergo an installation of a new annular ring and patch plates

on the floor.

In order to determine if the repaired tank is fit for service without the need for a hydrostatic test, a fracture

mechanics analysis was performed to establish the critical sizes of surface connected defects located in the

repaired regions. If the critical sizes of defects located in these regions are large enough such that ultrasonic,

dye penetrant, and/or magnetic particle inspection can find such flaws, and these flaws are eliminated, the

tank can be considered safe.

In order to perform the fracture mechanics analysis, the stresses imposed on the regions of interest were

established using finite element analyses (FEA). Two finite element models were created, one to examine

the stresses in the shell and a second to examine the stresses in the floor and annular plates. Both models

simulated the storage tank under hydrostatic test conditions. The tank was filled to the full 20 meter

(65.6 feet) fill height with 1.0 specific gravity fluid.

The FEA shell model is shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the model boundary conditions, including z-

direction (vertical) constraints on all bottom nodes in the model. Symmetry boundary conditions were

applied such that only half the tank was modeled. Figure 3 shows the internal hydrostatic pressure applied

to the tank, as well as the self-weight of the tank due to gravity.

The FEA model contained 54,064 reduced integration shell elements. These were linear elements, meaning

that they did not include mid-side nodes. The model was generated using the ABAQUS [2] modeling

program. Measured thicknesses of the various shell courses were provided by Aries Marine and Engineering

Services, and the thicknesses used in the model represented the smaller of the minimum measured and

nominal thickness in each shell course. These values and the general tank dimensions are summarized in

Table 1.

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

Item Dimension

Tank diameter 46 meters (150.9 feet)

Total tank height 20 meters (65.6 feet)

Course 1 thickness 22.4 millimeters (0.882 inches)

Course 2 thickness 19.2 millimeters (0.756 inches)

Course 3 thickness 16.1 millimeters (0.634 inches)

Course 4 thickness 13.7 millimeters (0.539 inches)

Course 5 thickness 11.1 millimeters (0.437 inches)

Course 6 thickness 10.4 millimeters (0.409 inches)

Course 7 thickness 8.79 millimeters (0.346 inches)

Course 8 thickness 8.79 millimeters (0.346 inches)

Floor Plate Thickness 5.59 millimeters (0.220 inches)

Annular Ring Thickness 10.0 millimeters (0.394 inches)

Bending stresses were examined at the bottom fillet weld connecting the tank wall to the tank annular ring

plates. External surface bending stresses are shown in Figure 4 while the internal surface bending stresses

can be found in Figure 5. The maximum bending stresses were identified on the outside of the tank at the

bottom fillet weld where the bending stress was compressive due to the applied fluid pressure moment. The

corresponding stress was then extracted on the opposite side of the shell thickness, such that a linear through-

thickness stress profile could be established. The stresses on the inside of the tank were tensile. A summary

of the hoop and bending stress results is presented in Table 2. Note that the stress values reported in Table

2 assume a weld joint efficiency of 0.85.

In order to evaluate the bending stresses in the tank floor and annular ring plates, an axisymmetric volume

element model was used. The tank mesh was assumed to sit on a soil foundation. This configuration allowed

for the slight upward bending of the floor near the chime due to the hydrostatic fluid load. The ring wall

foundation was represented by an analytic rigid surface where the tank was allowed to separate from the

foundation should the pressure forcing the two surfaces into contact drop to zero.

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

The maximum bending stress in the floor and annular plates occurred on the top side of the annular plate

near the toe of the inside chime weld. Figure 6 displays the bending stress distribution in the tank annular

plate at the floor to shell weld. On both sides of the weld, the stress profile was almost pure bending. Note

that stress values reported in Table 2 assume a weld joint efficiency of 0.85.

Stress Value

Max. Inside Bending - Shell 322.2 MPa (46,729 psi)

Min. Outside Bending - Shell -322.2 MPa (-46,729 psi)

Max. Top Bending Floor 411.0 MPa (59,605 psi)

Min. Bottom Bending - Floor -341.9 MPa (-49,587 psi)

The stability of the cracks (i.e. the potential for rupture) was assessed using the Failure Assessment Diagram

(FAD) which is described in API 579/ASME FFS-1 [3]. The FAD enhances linear elastic fracture

mechanics (LEFM) assessments by incorporating ductility. This calculation starts with a stress profile at a

critical location calculated from an FEA of the un-cracked structure. The stress intensity factor (KI) is

calculated along the crack front for the through thickness stress profile. The stress intensity factor depends

on the loading condition, the component geometry, and the crack configuration. For a brittle material, the

crack becomes unstable when the stress intensity factor (KI) exceeds the fracture toughness (KIC).

The FAD extends the crack stability assessment to structures experiencing both brittle and ductile fracture.

The FAD is a plot with a limiting curve and points representing the structure of interest. Figure 7 shows a

sample FAD. The x-axis of the plot is the load ratio (Lr) which is the ratio between the reference stress and

the material yield strength. The reference stress is proportional to the far-field stress and is computed based

on the loading condition, the component geometry, and the crack configuration. The y-axis of the plot is

the toughness ratio (Kr) which is the ratio of the stress intensity factor (KI) computed for the primary and

secondary loads and the fracture toughness of the material (KIC). The through-thickness stress profiles from

the FEA were incorporated in the computation of Lr - Kr.

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

For a particular crack size of length 2c and depth a, an Lr - Kr point is computed and plotted on the FAD. A

point falling under the limiting curve is considered acceptable or safe. A point falling on the curve is

considered critical. A point falling outside the curve is considered unacceptable or unsafe. A point lying

towards the right end of the diagram fails due to plastic collapse. A point lying towards the upper left corner

of the diagram fails due to brittle fracture.

These methods for computing the stress intensity factor, KI, and the FAD are outlined in API 579-2007 [3].

These methods are widely accepted and are implemented in the commercial software package, SignalTM FFS

[4], developed and sold by Quest Integrity USA, LLC.

Part of the hydro test exemption analysis was a calculation of the critical flaw sizes according to fracture

mechanics methodologies. The material fracture toughness is required to perform an accurate fracture

mechanics assessment. Along with the toughness estimate, yield and ultimate tensile strength values for the

tank material are necessary for the fracture mechanics analysis. The toughness (as measured by CTOD) and

tensile properties were obtained by destructive tests done by Anderson and Associates. A copy of the test

report is included in Appendix A. Table 3 summarizes the material values used for the fracture mechanics

analysis.

The sample for CTOD testing was taken from TK209. This tank is in similar service to TK216. Also, it was

constructed around the same time and the plates came from the same mill. The weld procedures used to

prepare the sample were the same as the procedures used for the TK216 repair welds. Therefore, the CTOD

test results for the TK209 sample can be inferred for TK216.

Material property Bottom Fillet Weld

Yield Strength 394.4 MPa (57.2 ksi)

Ultimate Tensile Strength 552.3 MPa (80.1 ksi)

Fracture toughness from CTOD 736.6 m (29.0 mils)

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

These material test results can be inferred for TK TK209/210/211/212/216/217/218 given that all the

requirements listed below are met:

The thickness of the plates are the same as for the test sample

The new repair welds are done using the same weld procedures as the test sample

The tanks are in similar service (same product and general operating conditions)

The tanks are of the same basic geometry (height and diameter)

The tanks were constructed around the same time and the plates came from the same mill

With the applied stresses and material toughness values, critical defect sizes for regions of interest could be

calculated. The critical flaw sizes are defined as the set of crack sizes which are computed as points on the

FAD curve as described above. Signal Fitness-for-Service [4] was used to establish the range of critical

defect sizes that could lead to sudden fracture failure. The data plotted as a graph of surface crack length

versus crack depth. A semi-elliptical surface crack was assumed for the analysis. The assumed flaw shape

had a surface length, 2c and depth, a. The weld residual stresses were calculated using guidelines in

API 579/ASME FFS-1 Annex E [3] for flat plates. Since the R/t ratio is very large, the flat plate solutions

were applied. These distributions are uniform through the plate thickness and have a magnitude equal to

the material yield strength. Examples of the input data and output plots for the Signal FFS program are

included in Appendix B.

Figure 8 shows the defect size diagram for flaws in the fillet weld between the first shell course and the tank

annular ring.

According to ASME standard procedures, flaw depths greater than 1.578 mm (0.0625 inch) are considered

readily identifiable with common inspection methods. Relevant rounded indications greater than 4.762 mm

(0.1875 inch) are cause for rejection. A rounded indication is one of circular or elliptical shape with a length

equal to or less than three times the width. Using these criteria for acceptance, it is observed that the critical

defect sizes established by the fracture mechanics analysis were greater than the relevant rounded indication

size (detectability reference).

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

4. Conclusions

The finite element analysis and fracture mechanics calculations showed that tank 216 is considered fit for

service as long as no defects of critical size exist in the vicinity of new welds. The critical defect sizes

exceeded the defect sizes that would be cause for rejection during inspection. This statement is made based

on the assumption that the new welds were inspected per API 653 requirements for major repairs. The

analysis showed that repairs made to the tank do not require a hydro test based on the guidelines

API 653 [1].

The results for TK216 can be inferred for TK209/210/211/212/216/217/218 given that all the requirements

listed below are met:

Repairs to these tanks are the same as what was analyzed in this report (replace annular plates,

install floor patch plates, partial replacement of floor plates)

The thickness of the new annular plates are the same as what was analyzed in this report (10 mm)

The new repair welds are done using the same weld procedures as the CTOD sample for TK209

which was tested by Anderson and Associates (see section 3.2 and Appendix A)

The tanks are in similar service (same product and general operating conditions)

The tanks are of the same basic geometry (height and diameter)

The tanks were constructed around the same time and the plates came from the same mill

This assessment was based on the provided geometry, loading, and material information. Variations in

loading, method of fabrication, inspection accuracy, and material properties will increase uncertainty in the

results. Loadings, not described in the provided information were not included in this assessment. Failure

mechanisms not explicitly listed were not covered by this assessment. Direct assessment of the welds (e.g.

residual stress modeling due to welding), or other failure mechanisms, were outside the scope of this report.

It is up to the operator to determine an appropriate margin of safety based on operational controls, inspection

methodology, and their overall integrity management strategy.

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

5. References

1. The American Petroleum Institute Standard 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and

Reconstruction. Fourth Edition 2012 American Petroleum Institute.

2. ABAQUS/Standard 6.14-2, Dassault Systmes Simulia Corp., 1301 Atwood Ave, Suite 101W,

Johnston, Rhode Island 02919, USA. www.abaqus.com.

3. Fitness-for-Service, API 579/ASME FFS-1, June 5, 2007, API 579 Second Edition, The American

Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 29996-4070, USA.

4. Signal Fitness-for-Service commercial software, Quest Integrity Group LLC. 1965 57 th Court

North, Suite 100, Boulder, CO, www.questintegrity.com.

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

6. Figures

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

Figure 4. Bending stress on the outside surface of the tank. Stress scale in psi, deformation scale 20x.

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

Figure 5. Bending stress on the inside surface of the tank. Stress scale in psi, deformation scale 20x.

Figure 6. Bending stress at the bottom fillet weld. Stress scale in psi, deformation scale 20x.

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

16.0

14.0

12.0

Crack Depth a (mm)

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

detectability

2.0

reference

0.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Crack Length 2c (mm)

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 15 of 29

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

Asset Longevity | Plant Performance

Signal Fitness-For-Service Report

Input Data

Assessment Information:

Assessment Type: Cracking

FFS Code: June 2007 API 579-1/ASME FFS-1

Units: lbs - in - psi

Analysis By:

Project Information:

Analysis Type: Single

Equipment Inputs:

Equipment: Flat Plate

Flat Width: 100 in

Flat Thickness: 0.394 in

Crack Information:

Flaw dimensions - N/A

Material Properties:

Material: Unknown Design Code

Youngs Modulus: 29000000 psi

Actual Tensile Properties are being used

Parent Metal Yield Strength: 57200 psi

Parent Metal Tensile Strength: 80100 psi

Weld Metal Yield Strength: 57200 psi

Weld Metal Ultimate Strength: 80100 psi

Primary Stresses: Linear

Pmax: 59605 psi

Pmin: -49587 psi

Reference Stresses: Use primary stress distribution

Results Summary

Part 9 Level 2

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.34

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.36

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.38

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.4

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.42

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.44

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.46

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.48

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.5

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.55

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.6

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.65

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.7

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.8

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.9

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.1

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.2

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.3

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.4

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.5

(Refer To: June 2007 API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 )

Part 9 Level 2

Generated By: Signal FitnessForService Professional Edition, Version 2015.0827

Signal FFS is written and maintained by Quest Integrity Group, a Team Industrial Services company

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.34

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.36

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.38

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.4

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.42

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.44

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.46

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.48

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.5

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.55

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.6

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.65

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.7

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.8

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.9

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.1

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.2

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.3

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.4

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.5

(Refer To: June 2007 API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 )

Step by Step Results not applicable for this assessment

Charts

Figures

Figure 1. Crack Depth v Crack Length.

Generated By: Signal FitnessForService Professional Edition, Version 2015.0827

Signal FFS is written and maintained by Quest Integrity Group, a Team Industrial Services company

Signal Fitness-For-Service Report

Input Data

Assessment Information:

Assessment Type: Cracking

FFS Code: June 2007 API 579-1/ASME FFS-1

Units: lbs - in - psi

Analysis By:

Project Information:

Crack Growth Mechanism: Limiting Flaw Size

Analysis Options: Compute Life

Analysis Endpoint: Grow to failure

Analysis Type: Single

Equipment Inputs:

Equipment: Flat Plate

Width: 100 in

Thickness: 0.882 in

Crack Information:

Shape: Surface crack

Location: W eld Metal

Weld is Stress Relieved: No

Orientation: Parallel to Weld Axis

Flaw dimensions - N/A

Material Properties:

Temperature: 15 F

Young's Modulus: 29000000.0000 psi

Actual Tensile Properties are being used

Parent Metal Yield Strength: 57200 psi

Parent Metal Tensile Strength: 80100 psi

Weld Metal Yield Strength: 57200 psi

Weld Metal Ultimate Strength: 80100 psi

Primary Stresses: Linear

Pmax: 46729 psi

Pmin: -46729 psi

Reference Stresses: Use primary stress distribution

Results Summary

Part 9 Level 2

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.32

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.34

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.36

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.38

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.4

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.42

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.44

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.46

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.48

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.5

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.55

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.6

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.65

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.7

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.8

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.9

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.1

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.2

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.3

Generated By: Signal FitnessForService Professional Edition, Version 2016.0708

Signal FFS is written and maintained by Quest Integrity Group, a Team Industrial Services company

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.4

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.5

(Refer To: June 2007 API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 )

Part 9 Level 2

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.32

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.34

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.36

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.38

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.4

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.42

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.44

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.46

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.48

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.5

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.55

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.6

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.65

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.7

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.8

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.9

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.1

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.2

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.3

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.4

Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1.5

(Refer To: June 2007 API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 )

Step by Step Results not applicable for this assessment

Charts

Figures

Generated By: Signal FitnessForService Professional Edition, Version 2016.0708

Signal FFS is written and maintained by Quest Integrity Group, a Team Industrial Services company

Figure 1. Crack Depth v Crack Length.

Generated By: Signal FitnessForService Professional Edition, Version 2016.0708

Signal FFS is written and maintained by Quest Integrity Group, a Team Industrial Services company

- Failure AnalysisDiunggah olehkothapalli_sabi1396
- Introduction to Mechanical Properties of Materials.pdfDiunggah olehTejanath Teju
- 1-s2.0-S014102961630044X-mainDiunggah olehJc Donnelli
- Fabris J Et Al Critical Evaluation of Corn Silo Burst Failure AnalysisDiunggah olehAndré Luiz Nogueira
- FailuresDiunggah olehconmec.crpl
- ME489 Notes-Slides Abul-Fazal-Arif Ansys-ManualDiunggah olehOmaroMohsen
- IJERTV1IS8295Diunggah olehxaaabbb_550464353
- LECTURE 5 - CONCRETE STRENGTH.pdfDiunggah olehKaren Lovedorial
- ON THE WESTERGAARD METHOD OF CRACK ANALYSISDiunggah olehAnatoli Krasilnikov
- Brazilian TestDiunggah olehJustin Ng
- 080509 Term PaperMWDiunggah olehferasalkam
- Discrete Versus Smeared Crack AnalysisDiunggah olehMAZIGHI
- A Review of T-stress and Its Effects in Fracture MechanicsDiunggah olehMarilene Lobato
- 347277446-RILEM-TC-162-TDF-pdf.pdfDiunggah olehMuheeb Altaleb
- 54f629700cf27d8ed71d64e6Diunggah olehE_Amr_Sorour
- Thermal-Structural Modeling and TemperatDiunggah olehEduardoDavilaOrtega
- Emm Question Bank Unit3Diunggah olehMANOJ M
- Corrosion FatigueDiunggah olehchicof9
- Fibrillated MicrofibersDiunggah olehRadhaAnanthalekshmi
- LTU-EX-2014-87128534Diunggah olehalbsteinpor
- 19648189.2013.791076Diunggah olehhammads88
- 13358.pdfDiunggah olehkasia wp
- Glass Fracture AnalysisDiunggah olehMarkus Wolfe
- IntroductionDiunggah olehMary Grace D. Almiranez
- Determination of Mechanical Properties - G.P. TziallasDiunggah olehrenos73
- BLOCK SHEAR CONNECTION DESIGN CHECKS.pdfDiunggah oleh112160rbc
- 1-s2.0-S1644966512600454-main.pdfDiunggah olehMostefa Bendouba
- Wall Thinning Acceptance Criteria for Degraded Carbon Steel Piping Systems Using FAD Methodology (U)Diunggah olehDiana Budi Prasetya
- Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics_ Application in Reactor Pressure VesselsDiunggah olehGilberto Jarvio
- 34 the Mechanism of Hydrogen EmbrittlementDiunggah olehDragana Radic

- A Finite Element Calculation of Stress Intensity Factors of Cruciform and Butt Welded Joints for Some Geometrical ParametersDiunggah olehAhmed M. Al-Mukhtar
- ECSS-E-30-01A Fracture Control (13 April 1999)Diunggah olehAndrea Santori
- Walter D. Pilkey-Formulas for Stress, Strain, and Structural Matrices-Wiley (2004)Diunggah olehMoncho SB Pongrac
- Chapter 2 Design for StrengthDiunggah olehNurul Asyilah
- XFEM-BelystchoDiunggah olehAB
- An Overview of Failure Methods in Codes and Assessment StandardsDiunggah olehionut
- Calculation of Stress Intensity Factor of Stress Corrosion CrackingDiunggah olehGilberto Jarvio
- Fracture MechanicsDiunggah olehcal2_uni
- Pressure VesPressure Vessel Failures - Hayes1996sel Failures - Hayes1996Pressure Vessel Failures - Hayes1996Diunggah olehsagar1503
- TUTORIAL.docxDiunggah olehDeghboudj Samir
- Fatigue 2marks n 16 marksDiunggah olehAdrian James
- Master ThesisDiunggah olehJose Luis
- Fracture Failure Analysis of AISI 304L Stainless Steel ShaftDiunggah olehPedro Henrique
- Chahardehi_thesis_2008Diunggah olehAmir Ebrahim Chahardehi
- Some Remarks on the History of Fracture MechanicsDiunggah olehjs kalyana rama
- Griffith Theory of Brittle FractureDiunggah olehM.Saravana Kumar..M.E
- v1i14.pdfDiunggah olehkarthipriya
- Failure Analysis of Cold Drawn Prestressing Steel Wires Subjected to Stress Corrosion CrackingDiunggah olehriza9847
- Analysis_of_fatigue_crack_growth_retardation_due.pdfDiunggah olehReza Khatibi Nasab
- ME Web ModuleDiunggah olehAndrewFrancisco
- C1421 TestDiunggah olehJuan DF
- MD-5BDiunggah olehctvd93
- BENCH KJ_Rev4_30_07_2012Diunggah olehpajadhav
- Aircraft DesignDiunggah olehrjafonso
- A Fracture Mechanics Model for the Wear of Gear Flanks by PittingDiunggah olehFernando Rocker
- zareei2016Diunggah olehdiego
- Fracture Project PresentationDiunggah olehdhillon_rsd
- Analysis of Crack in a Tooth of Spur Gear Using Finite Element Analysis and Remedial Action-IJAERDV04I0155714Diunggah olehEditor IJAERD
- FFS AnalysisDiunggah olehrajeesh
- Navilkumar_Shetty-1992-PhD-Thesis.pdfDiunggah olehArianta Rian