Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Stan Kusters, Sintra Engineers
This Presentation
Introduction
Input from study B
Deterministic analysis
Probabilistic analysis
Conclusions
2
Legenda: Experience
Checking
Theoretical part
Practical part
• Part D
• Field verification
• Part C
• Fracture Mech validation
• Part B
• Evaluation projects
• Part A
• Inventory literature
Part E
Concept Std.
Evaluation
Legenda: Experience
Checking
Theoretical part
Practical part
• Part D
• Field verification
• Part C
• Fracture Mech validation
• Part B
• Evaluation projects
• Part A
• Inventory literature
Part E
Concept Std.
Evaluation
Goal: Develop Good WorkmanShip acceptance criteria for
PAUT, leading to same quality level as RT, to be
published as EN/ISO norm
ScopeThin walled low alloy steel between 3.2-8.0 mm
Original plan: Four project “phases”
Theoretical – practical
Past experience – testing/validating
Phase A & B provide proposed AC and supporting
information
Phase C & D validate rejection rate (D) and
Probablity of Failure for standard case (C)
The KINT ACPA project
3
Introduction Study C
4
Validation of acceptance criterion for Phased Array
Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) using fracture mechanics:
One acceptance criterion applicable for different components
(cylinder and flat plate)
Deterministic analysis performed to determine the
allowable defect size
Probabilistic approach to compare Radiographic Testing
(RT) and Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT)
Probability of Failure (PoF)
False Call Rate (FCR)
Rejection Rate (RR)
Input from study B All defects in study C will be classified as a through wall crack-like flaw
Not possible to reliably determine the defects depth/height by PAUT
Reliable characterization of the defect is not possible with PAUT
With RT a distinction between a planar flaw and a non-planar flaw can be made.
Probability of Detection for PAUT and RT
Flaw distribution
Planar flaws (RT): 21 % (Of all defects)
Deviation defect length (sizing error)
Length Length
Depth
Height
Rest ligamentIf depth or rest ligament
<20% of wall thickness
→ through wall crack
5
Components All combinations of parameters below have been assessed
3 configurations:
Flat plate
Longitudinal weld in cylinder
circumferential weld in cylinder
Wall thickness: 3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm en 9 mm
Outside diameter: 100 mm, 200 mm and 1,000 mm
Yield strength: 200 MPa (Low) and 500 MPa (High)
Fracture toughness: Based on API579; Material Class A (Low) and D (High)
Load: Membrane stress + bending stress and residual
6
Deterministic analysis
7
Fracture toughness Based on API579 material is ranked from A to D
The two extremes (material class A and D) have been chosen for the determination of the
fracture toughness
Lower bound fracture toughness determined for all 4 material combinations: Low yield strength and low fracture toughness
Low yield strength and high fracture toughness
High yield strength and low fracture toughness
High yield strength and high fracture toughness
Toughness
Material class A Material class D
Strength200 MPa 1,263 MPa√mm 2,000 MPa√mm
500 MPa 1,394 MPa√mm 3,021 MPa√mm
8
Applied stresses Primary stress:
Based on maximal design criterion EN/RTOD
Membrane stress: 2/3 of yield strength
Bending stress: 1/3 of yield strength
Residual stress:
Based on API579-1/ASME FFS-1:2016. Conservative assumption (upper bound)
For a flat plate a uniform stress of yield strength + 69 MPa has been assumed
For the circumferential weld and longitudinal weld as shown in figures below.
9
Results For the different materials the maximum allowable through wall defect length is determined.
Material with high yield strength and low fracture toughness is most critical
Maximum allowable through wall defect length is less than 1 mm. This is not realistic as acceptance
criterion.
Material
Yield
strength
Fracture
toughness
Critical defect
length [mm]
[MPa] [MPa√mm] Pm Pm + Pb
1200
1,263 1.8 1.2
2 2,000 5.7 3.6
3500
1,394 0.5 0.3
4 3,021 2.6 1.7
10
Probabilistic analysis
11
Fracture mechanics assessments Probabilisitc analysis performed → Monte Carlo analyses
120 million fracture mechanic assessments
Performing Fracture mechanics assessment
where statistical selection of parameters is
done:
- Flaw length (2C0)
- Membrane stress
- Bending stress
- Fracture Toughness
Flaw distribution
Membrane stress
Bending stress
Fracture toughnessFailure or No Failure
12
Flaw distribution Obtained by study B: Based on CT data
Mainly defects with a length below the 5 mm
Weibull distribution used in Monte Carlo assessment
13
Fracture mechanic assessmentsPhased Array Ultrasonic Testing
Defect
Rejected
PoD
Fracture mechanic
Length resizing
Accepted
Correctly Not Correctly
Found
Measured length less
than acceptance
criterion?
Yes No
No Failure Failure
Not Found
All failures divided by total
defects gives PoF
All rejected defects
divided by total
defects gives RR
All not correctly rejected
defects divided by total
defects gives FCR
Varied
Repair14
Fracture mechanic assessmentsRadiographic Testing
Defect
Rejected
PoD
Fracture mechanic
Length resizing
Accepted
Correctly Not Correctly
Found
Measured length less
than acceptance
criterion?
Yes No
No Failure Failure
Not Found
All failures divided by total
defects gives PoF
All rejected defects
divided by total
defects gives RR
All not correctly rejected
defects divided by total
defects gives FCR
2 mm
Repair
Planar?
Yes
No
15
PoD graphs from study B
16
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Pro
bab
ility
of
Det
ect
ion
[-]
Actual Defect Length [mm]
Probability of Detection
RT PAUT (Double sided)
Radiographic Testing
Mean: -1.32 mm (CT measures a longer defect)
Standard deviation: 2.95 mm
Phased Array Ultrasonic testing (Double sided)
Mean: -0.47 mm (CT measures a longer defect)
Standard deviation: 7.22 mm
Length resizing
17
Only results of high strength/low toughness material and flat plate shown (most critical)
Probability of failure (PoF) of PAUT and RT are compared
Ratio of PoF (PAUT divided by RT)
If PoF ratio is 1, the PoF of PAUT and RT are the same Acceptance criterion is approximately 5.5 mm
Probabilistic analysis: Results
1 million
defects
18
Percentage planar defects
From 21 % (based on all defects) to 14 % (based on detected defects with RT)
No significant effect on acceptance criterion
Resizing of defect length
From independent on defect length (normal distributed) to dependent on defect length (uniform
distributed)
Optimisation of Prob. analysis
19
PoF ratio is 1 for an acceptance criterion (PAUT double sided) of approximately 5 mm
Significant decrease of FCR ratio
(max ratio was 3)
Decrease of RR ratio
Results Optimisation
20
Fracture toughness
For small wall thickness (<10 mm) the fracture toughness is higher than the assumed (Lower bound)
fracture toughness. (plane strain/plane stress)
Resizing defect length
A uniform distribution of the sizing error (dependent on crack length) has been applied. It’s more likely
that in practice the distribution will be a normal distribution (dependent on crack length). Data set of study
B is not sufficient to determine the mean and standard deviation of the normal distribution per defect
length.
Sensitivity ass. of Prob. Analysis
21
Fracture toughness
Has no influence on FCR and RR
PoF ratio is 1 for an acceptance criterion (PAUT double sided) of approximately 5.5 mm
Results Sensitivity assessments
22
Resizing defect length
PoF ratio is 1 for an acceptance criterion (PAUT double sided)
of approximately 6mm
Results Sensitivity assessments
23
Single Sided
24
PoD graphs from study B
25
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Pro
bab
ility
of
Det
ect
ion
[-]
Actual Defect Length [mm]
Probability of Detection
RT PAUT (Double sided) PAUT Single sided
Acceptance criterion for single sided PAUT is based on double
sided PAUT
Study D and E came to an acceptance criterion for an inspection level 1,
level 2 and level 3 inspection level of respectively 6 mm, 7 mm and 8 mm
The PoF of single sided compared/equalized to double sided
Acceptance criterion single sided PAUT Inspection level 1: ≈ 2.5mm
Inspection level 2: ≈ 3.9mm
Inspection level 3: ≈ 5.3mm
Single Sided
26
Based on a probabilistic analysis an acceptance criterion for PAUT double sided
of around 6mm gives the same probability of failure as RT
Not possible to compare FCR and RR with study B and study D
The sizing error of the two inspections have an influence on the False Call Rate and Rejection
Rate. Sizing error is not known accurately enough
Not possible to align the definition of RR and FCR with study B and study D
Single sided PAUT compared/equalized to double sided PAUT
Acceptance criterion single sided PAUT Inspection level 1: ≈ 2.5 mm
Inspection level 2: ≈ 3.9 mm
Inspection level 3: ≈ 5.3 mm
Conclusions
27
Questions?
28
Study C project team – Stijn Hertelé, Alfons Krom, Paul
Stevens, Casper Wassink and Pascal Schreurs
Project leads – Leo Ton, Casper Wassink and Erik
Zeelenberg
29
Thank you!