FRACTURE MECHANICS ANALYSIS OF A

PRESSURE VESSEL ACCORDING TO PD 5500

ANALYSE DE LA MÉCANIQUE DE LA RUPTURE D`UN

CUVE DE PRESSION SELON LA PD 5500

F.J. Vigil, J. Jorge, M.A. Guerrero, H. Pérez

ITMA Materials Technology, Engineering Area.
Calafates 11, 33417, Avilés, Asturias – SPAIN
(f.vigil@itma.es, j.jorge@itma.es, m.armindo@itma.es, h.perez@itma.es)

ABSTRACT

The fracture mechanics analysis of a pressure vessel to ensure that there is not fatigue crack
propagation of the minimum detectable size crack was performed according to PD 5500:2012
Annex U. A global mechanical analysis of the vessel was performed under hydraulic test
condition assuming 30% yield strength as residual stresses; then a submodel of the vessel
considering the crack was used to determine J-integral value along the crack-tip verifying it is
lower than obtained from laboratory test.

RESUME

L'analyse de la mécanique de la rupture d'une cuve de pression a été réalisée selon la PD

5500: 2012 Annexe U afin d’assurer que la taille minimale détectable de la fissure
n’augmente pas due à la fatigue. Une analyse globale de la structure a été réalisée dans des
conditions de test hydraulique en supposant que les contraintes résiduelles sont égales à 30%
de la limite d’élasticité; puis un sous-modèle de la cuve tenant compte de la fissure a été
utilisé pour déterminer la valeur de l’intégrale J le long de la pointe de la fissure et vérifier
qu'elle est inférieure à celle obtenue lors de test en laboratoire.

INTRODUCTION

PD 5500:2012 Annex D [Ref. 1] specifies requirements that are intended to avoid brittle
fracture during operation and pressure testing. However, those requirements apply only to a
limited range of steels but combine requirements for limiting stresses and weld defects with
certain notch ductilities that might be unduly conservative in some circumstances.

A fracture mechanics analysis following the principles of BS7910 [Ref. 2] but observing the
conditions specified in PD 5500:2012 Annex U.2 [Ref. 1] may be used as a basis for
determining the suitability of particular vessels for their intended duty when so agreed
between the purchaser, manufacturer and Inspection Authority when, as in the pressure vessel

-1-
hereby studied, it is proposed to use group 1 materials in thicknesses greater than those
permitted by Table 4.1-1 [Ref. 1] without post-weld heat treatment.

A mechanical analysis of the whole pressure vessel, with no crack, considering a residual
stress of 30% of yield strength as per PD 5500:2012 Annex U.2 [Ref. 1] was performed under
hydraulic test condition to obtain the worst location and orientation for the crack.

Then, a submodel of the part of the vessel shell where the maximum stress takes place was
analysed considering a semi-elliptical surface crack. This technique allows to obtain more
accurate results in the shell region which contains the crack because the whole model may be
too coarse to produce satisfactory results in the crack, a stress concentration region in the
stress analysis.

Finally, a linear elastic fracture mechanical (LEFM) analysis was performed from the stress
results of the crack model.

The aim of this analysis is to determine the J-integral value along the crack-tip which
maximum value must be lower than the minimum value obtained in the intensive
experimental program carried out in the laboratory to determine the material fracture
toughness by means of fracture mechanics.

These studies were performed by means of two finite element analyses which were run using
the ANSYS commercial software (release 16.0). A 3D finite element model of the whole
vessel and a detailed model of the shell crack region were developed following accurately the
geometry of the pressure vessel and the crack dimensions and location defined.

MECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PRESSURE VESSEL

A first mechanical analysis of the whole pressure vessel under hydraulic test conditions and
considering a residual stress of 30% of yield strength was performed to determine the stress
distribution, and the most loaded region on the shell where the crack will be located for a later
accurately analysis.

Geometrical and finite element models of the pressure vessel

A detailed 3D geometrical model of the whole vessel was developed in ANSYS software
according to the dimensions defined in the pressure vessel drawings. Figure 1 depicts an
isometric view.

From the geometrical model previously generated, the finite element model was created using
first order solid elements, type SOLID185.

Since the pressure vessel model is symmetric about its middle vertical planes, for both
geometrical and loading conditions, a symmetric analysis was performed considering a
quarter of the model in order to reduce the size of the finite element model.

Finally, the finite element model (FEM) generated for the mechanical analysis of the pressure
vessel consists of 80601 element and 105614 nodes. Figure 2 shows a general view of the
model.

-2-
Figure 1. Geometrical model of the pressure Figure 2. Finite element model of the
vessel. pressure vessel.

Material properties

The material properties of the steel grade P355 NL2 considered for the mechanical analysis
were obtained from standard EN 10028-3:2009 [Ref. 3], and are the following: Poisson’s ratio
0.3, density 7850 kg/m3,Young’s modulus 210 GPa and yield strength 295 MPa.

Loads and boundary conditions of the

pressure vessel analysis

Taking into account the conditions specified

in the procedure U.2 of the PD 5500 Annex U
[Ref. 1] the mechanical analysis of the
pressure vessel was performed on the
hydraulic test condition applying the
following loads:
• Internal pressure of the hydraulic test
applied over the internal surface, 205.5
barG.
• Hydrostatic pressure applied over the
internal surface considering the vessel
full of water.
• Residual stress of 30% of yield strength
considered as circumferential stress due
to the maximum stress in the shell
occurs in this direction as it can be seen
later in the results. Figure 3. Loads and boundary conditions
(MPa).

-3-
On the other hand, as boundary conditions, the vertical displacement was fixed at the bottom
surface of the skirt together with the symmetry conditions applied on the vertical section
planes, see Figure 3.

Stress results on the pressure vessel

The equivalent stress distribution obtained for the whole model under the loads and boundary
conditions described previously is depicted in Figure 4 whereas a detailed view of the
circumferential and axial stresses in the shell are shown in Figures 5 and 6 respectively. As it
can be seen in the aforementioned figures, the maximum value of the shell stress occurs in the
circumferential direction, 368.67 MPa, and takes place in the internal surface, whereas the
maximum axial stress value is 203 MPa.

Figure 4. Equivalent stress distribution on the pressure vessel without residual stress (MPa).

Figure 5. Circumferential stress distribution Figure 6. Axial stress distribution on the shell
on the shell of the pressure vessel (MPa). of the pressure vessel (MPa).

-4-
Figure 7 shows the evolution of the circumferential and axial stresses along the path AA of
the internal surface of the shell indicated in the detail of this figure. In this graph it can be
seen that the maximum value of the circumferential stress, 368.67 MPa, takes place at 1076.5
mm above the lower tangent line (LTL).

Axial Circumferential
400

350

300

250
Stress (MPa)

200

150

100

50

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Height from LTL (mm)

Figure 7. Evolution of the axial and circumferential stresses on the path AA of the shell.

MECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DETAILED MODEL OF THE CRACK

Once the mechanical analysis of the whole pressure vessel was performed, from the results
obtained and in agreement with the purchaser, manufacturer and inspecting authority a
vertical semielliptical crack of 50x30 mm was placed in the inner side of the shell, where the
maximum value of the stress takes place.

Thus, a detailed model of the shell part where the crack is located was analysed by means of
the submodeling technique.

Geometrical and finite element models of the crack

For the analysis of the crack, a detailed model of the part of the shell was developed from the
whole model previously generated. Figure 8 shows a general view and a detail of the crack
model.

The finite element submodel generated for the mechanical analysis of the pressure vessel
consists of 225304 elements and 243746 nodes, see Figure 9.

-5-
 Figure 8. Geometrical model of the crack: Figure 9. Finite element model of the crack:
general view and detail. general view and detail.

Loads and boundary conditions of the crack analysis

As it was previously defined for the analysis of the pressure vessel, the loads applied in the
analysis of the detailed model of the crack were the following:
• Internal pressure of the hydraulic test applied over the internal surface, 205.5 barG.
• Hydrostatic pressure applied over the internal surface considering the vessel full of
water.
• Residual stress of 30% of yield strength considered as circumferential stress.

Stress results on the crack

The results obtained from the analysis of the submodel considering the crack are shown in the
following figures in which can be verified that the cut boundaries are far enough from the
stress concentration region of the crack.

Figures 10 and 11 show the circumferential and axial stress distributions of the submodel of
the crack. Figure 12 graphs the cylinder stress distribution along the crack tip.

Figure 10. Circumferential stress distribution Figure 11. Axial stress distribution at the
at the crack (MPa). crack (MPa).

-6-
 Figure 12. Cylinder stress evolution along the crack tip.

FRACTURE MECHANICS ANALYSIS

From the stress results obtained in the crack model, a linear elastic fracture mechanics
analysis was performed in order to determine the J-integral value along the crack-tip, which
maximum value must be lower than the minimum value obtained in the experimental
program.

For a crack in a linear elastic material, the J-integral represents the energy-release rate and it
is defined as follows:

(1)

where W is the strain energy density, T is the kinematic energy density, σ represents the
stresses, u is the displacement vector, and Γ is the contour over which the integration is
carried out.

Testing program

An intensive testing program was carried out at ITMA laboratories to determine the material
fracture toughness by means of fracture mechanics characterization of several combinations
of steel grades, manufacturing processes, welding processes and welding consumables used
by the customer during the pressure vessel manufacturing.

Four samples were supplied in order to perform three CTOD tests per sample, according to
the PD 5500:2012 Annex U [Ref. 1]. All the evaluated samples received a heat treatment
before performing the fracture toughness tests.

-7-
Figure 13 depicts the orientation of specimens, YX and NP direction according to the BS
7448-1 [Ref. 4] and EN ISO 15653 [Ref. 5].

Test procedure

Previous to the CTOD test, a pre-cracking

fatigue process was carried out at room
temperature.

The CTOD tests were done according to

the requirements of BS 7448-1 [Ref. 4] and
were performed inside a controlled
temperature chamber, using liquid nitrogen
as refrigerant.

The test temperature was measured near the

pre-crack region by means of a contact
thermocouple. In order to assure
temperature stabilization, tests have started
at least 180 min after the temperature Figure 13. Orientation of specimens.
reached -50 ± 2 °C.

Test results

According to the BS 7448-1 [Ref. 4], the J values were calculated through the Load-COD
graphs, Table 1 presents the results as well as the specimens codifications and CTOD
requirements.

Table 1. Specimens codifications, CTOD requirements and results.

Specimen ID J (single values)
Material Notch Thickness Test Standard
code [kJ/m2]
BM-1 Ju = 201
CTOD
P355NL2 + Heat Base BS-7448-1
BM-2 Jc = 81 124 mm at
Treatment Metal EN ISO 15653
-50⁰C
BM-3 Ju = 243
S-1 (invalid test)
CTOD
SAW + Heat Weld BS-7448-1
S-2 Ju = 173 124 mm at
Treatment Metal EN ISO 15653
-50⁰C
S-3 Ju = 988
SM-1 Ju = 186
CTOD
SMAW + Heat Weld BS-7448-1
SM-2 Jc = 142 124 mm at
Treatment Metal EN ISO 15653
-50⁰C
SM-3 Ju = 86
F-1 Ju = 157
CTOD
P355QH + Heat Base BS-7448-1
F-2 Ju = 175 124 mm at
Treatment Metal EN ISO 15653
-50⁰C
F-3 Jc = 78

-8-
DISCUSSION

The evolution of the J-integral value along the crack-tip obtained from fracture mechanics
analysis is depicted in Figure 14. As it can be seen, the maximum value, 33.7 kJ/m2, is lower
than the minimum value obtained from the tests, 78 kJ/m2, regardless of the material of the
area in which crack is located.

40

35

30
J-integral (kJ/m2)

25

20

15
Z
10

0
-25 -15 -5 5 15 25
Z (mm)
Figure 14. Evolution of the J-integral along the crack tip.

CONCLUSIONS

The results obtained in the present study from the fracture mechanics analysis of the pressure
vessel aim of study, according to PD 5500:2012 Annex U [Ref. 1], allow ensuring that there
is not fatigue crack propagation of a semielliptical crack of 50x30 mm placed in the inner side
of the shell, since the maximum value of the integral J at the crack-tip is below the minimum
value obtained from the test program.

REFERENCES

[1] PD 5500:2012. “Specification for unfired fusion welded pressure”.

[2] BS 7910. “Guidance on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in
Fusion Welded Structures”, London, British Standards Institution (BSI), 2000.
[3] EN 10028-3:2009. “Flat products made of steels for pressure purposes” - Part 3:
Weldable fine grain steels, normalized.
[4] BS 7448-1: 1991. “Fracture Mechanics Toughness Tests. Method for
Determination of KIC, Critical CTOD and Critical J Values of Metallic Materials”.
[5] EN ISO 15653: 2010. “Metallic Materials. Method of test for the determination of
quasistatic fracture toughness of welds”.

-9-