Sample Report - T 204 VTTI by Quest

Title: Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI TK204
Client: VTTI
Attn: Sony Manikandan
Quest Job Number: 110965
Confidential To: Client, Tank Owner/Operator
Report Issued: April 7, 2017
Prepared By: Lucie Parietti, M.Sc.

Consulting Engineer, Advanced Engineering
Checked By: Mike Turnquist, M.Sc.

Senior Consulting Engineer, Advanced Engineering
Quest Integrity USA, LLC

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
Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965
Executive Summary
The purpose of this analysis was to establish that repaired tank TK204 owned and operated by VTTI at the
Fujairah refinery in the United Arab Emirates is fit for continued service without the need for a hydro test
by application of fracture mechanics analysis per API 653 [1]. The tank is to undergo modifications
including the installation of a new annular ring.
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 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 TK204 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.
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.
Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 2 of 28

Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................2
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................4
2. Finite Element Analysis ..............................................................................................................5
3. Material Properties ......................................................................................................................6
4. FEA Stress Results ......................................................................................................................6
5. Fracture Mechanics Analysis ......................................................................................................7
6. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................8
7. References ...................................................................................................................................9
8. Figures .......................................................................................................................................10
Appendix A: Finite Element Analysis Details ......................................................................................13
Appendix B: Material Test Report from Anderson and Associates ......................................................14
Appendix C: Fracture Mechanics Methodology ...................................................................................22
Appendix D: Signal™ Fitness-For-Service Reports .............................................................................24

1. Introduction
In order to determine if the repaired tank can be returned to service without the need for a hydrostatic test,
finite element analysis (FEA) was performed in order to identify the peak stresses in the new repair welds
when the tank was subject to hydrostatic test conditions. Using these stress results, a fracture mechanics
analysis was performed to establish the critical flaw sizes associated with the new repair welds. The fracture
mechanics analysis was performed in accordance with Part 9 of API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2016 (API 579)
[2].
These critical flaw sizes were compared against a typical flaw detectability reference. This detectability
reference represents a typical flaw size which may still be present in the new repair welds after a thorough
inspection of the welds. If the critical flaw sizes are observed to exceed the detectability reference, unstable
crack propagation in the new repair welds is not expected and the tank can be considered exempt from the
need for a hydrostatic test.

2. Finite Element Analysis
FEA was performed in order to identify the peak stresses in the new repair welds for the tank under
hydrostatic testing conditions. A finite element model was created to examine the stresses in the bottom
fillet weld. The model simulated the storage tank under hydrostatic test conditions with the tank being filled
to a maximum fill height of 65.6 feet (20,000 mm) with 1.0 specific gravity fluid.
The mesh used for the bottom fillet weld model is shown in Figure 1. Ultrasonic thickness (UT)
measurements for course 1 were provided in a UT examination report from VTTI. The thicknesses used in
the models represented the minimum measured thickness for course 1, and the nominal thicknesses for
courses 2 through 8. These values and the other general tank dimensions are summarized in Table 1.
Detailed information for the finite element model is included in Appendix A.
Table 1. General dimensions and thicknesses for each shell course.

Item Dimension
Tank diameter 85.3 feet (26,000 mm)
Total tank height 65.6 feet (20,000 mm)
Max fill height 65.6 feet (20,000 mm)
Course 1 thickness 0.422 inches (11.22 mm)
Course 4 - 8 thickness 0.354 inches (9.00 mm)
Annular Ring Thickness 0.394 inches (10.00 mm)
Floor Plate Thickness 0.315 inches (8.00 mm)

3. Material Properties
Linear-elastic material properties were used for the FEA. Destructive testing was performed in order to
obtain values for yield strength, ultimate tensile strength and fracture toughness for the the new bottom fillet
weld using tensile testing and CTOD testing. This destructive testing was completed by Anderson and
Associates. Table 2 summarizes the material values. The test report from Anderson and Associates is
provided in Appendix B.
Table 2. Material properties used in the fracture mechanics analysis.

Material property Bottom Fillet Weld
Yield Strength 54.7 ksi (377 MPa)
Ultimate Tensile Strength 78.5 ksi (541 MPa)
Fracture toughness from CTOD 28.0 mils (711.2 µm)
4. FEA Stress Results
A contour plot of the bending stress in the floor plates at the bottom fillet weld is shown in Figure 2. A
contour plot of the bending stress in the shell plates at the bottom fillet weld is shown in Figure 3.
The peak stresses from the FEA are summarized in Table 3. The stresses presented in Table 3 were adjusted
by a factor of safety associated with a weld joint efficiency of 0.85.
Table 3. Maximum stress values from FEA.

Stress Value
Max. Inside Bending - Shell 42,138 psi (291 MPa)
Min. Outside Bending - Shell -45,031 psi (310 MPa)
Max. Top Bending - Floor 44,821 psi (309 MPa)
Min. Bottom Bending - Floor -33,532 psi (231 MPa)
The maximum bending stress in the floor plates occurred on the top side of the plate near the toe of the
inside chime weld.

5. Fracture Mechanics Analysis
Using the stress results presented in the previous section, a fracture mechanics analysis was performed to
establish the critical flaw sizes associated with the new repair welds. The fracture mechanics analysis was
completed in accordance with Part 9 of API 579 [2]. Detailed methodology for this analysis is provided in
Appendix B.
The critical flaw sizes for a surface flaw in the new bottom fillet weld are shown in Figure 4. The critical
flaw size calculations were completed using SignalTM FFS [3], a commercial software package developed
and sold by Quest Integrity. Reports detailing the input data and output plots and results from SignalTM FFS
are included in Appendix C.
According to ASME standard procedures, flaw depths greater than 1/16 inch (1.59 mm) are considered
readily identifiable with common inspection methods. Relevant rounded indications greater than 3/16 inch
(4.76 mm) 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. These criteria were used to establish a detectability reference as
being a 3/16” long x 1/16” deep surface flaw.
The critical flaw sizes calculated for the new repair welds exceeded the detectability reference. Therefore,
unstable crack propagation in the new repair welds is not expected and the tank can be considered exempt
from the need for a hydrostatic test. This statement is made assuming that ultrasonic, dye penetrant,
radiography and/or magnetic particle inspection will find existing flaws in the new repair welds as small as
4.76 mm long by 1.59 mm deep, and these flaws are eliminated before the tank is returned to service. The
inspection of the new repair welds shall be performed accordance with API 653 [1].

6. Conclusions
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 TK204 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.
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.

7. References
1. The American Petroleum Institute Standard 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Reconstruction. Fourth Edition © 2012 American Petroleum Institute.
2. Fitness-for-Service, API 579/ASME FFS-1, June , 2016, API 579 Second Edition, The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 29996-4070, USA.
3. Signal Fitness-for-Service commercial software, Quest Integrity Group LLC. 1965 57th Court
North, Suite 100, Boulder, CO, www.questintegrity.com.
4. ABAQUS/Standard 6.16, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., 1301 Atwood Ave, Suite 101W,
Johnston, Rhode Island 02919, USA. www.abaqus.com.

8. Figures
Figure 1. FEA mesh – Bottom fillet weld model.

Figure 2. Bending stress in floor plates at the floor to shell weld. Stress scale in psi, deformation scale 30x.
Figure 3. Bending stress in shell plates at the floor to shell weld. Stress scale in psi, deformation scale 30x.

Critical Flaw Size for Bending Stress at Bottom Fillet Weld

8
6
Crack Depth a (mm)
2
detectability
reference
1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Crack Length 2c (mm)
flaw on floor side of weld Series1
Figure 4. Critical flaw sizes at the bottom fillet weld.

Appendix A: Finite Element Analysis Details
An axisymmetric shell element model was used to evaluate the stresses associated with the repairs made to
this weld. This model was composed of linear axisymmetric volume elements (CAX4R). The model was
generated using the ABAQUS [4] finite element modeling program.
Gravity loads were applied along with a hydrostatic pressure load associated with the tank being filled with
water (SG=1.0).
Contact interaction was assigned between the bottom of the tank and the foundation. The tank foundation
was represented by an analytic rigid surface with an assigned contact stiffness. This allowed for the slight
upward bending of the bottom fillet weld due to the hydrostatic fluid load to be accurately captured.

Appendix B: Material Test Report from Anderson and Associates

NDERSON&
SSOCIATES
CONSULTING METALLURGICAL ENGINEERS AND TESTING LABORATORY
March 31, 2017
Quest Integrity Group

Attn: Michael Turnquist
1965 N. 57th Court, Suite 110
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Re: 170173 Quest Integrity VTTI

Fujairah Tank 204 110965
Dear Mr. Turnquist:
Pursuant to your request number 110965 we have completed the testing on the
submitted welded samples from VTTI Fujairah Tank 204. This report details our
findings.
SPECIMENS
A. One old shell corner-welded to a new bottom plate was submitted for testing
TENSILE TESTING
1. One cross-HAZ reduced section tensile (RST) was removed from Sample A. The
results follow.
Yield Tensile
Strength Strength Elongation
Specimen [psi] [psi] [%]
Old Shell Corner-Welded to New
54,700 78,500 28.5
Bottom Plate
CTOD TESTING
2. One set of three front face SE(B) CTOD specimens was removed from Sample A
and notched in the bottom plate HAZ.
ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. – 919 F.M. ROAD 1959 - HOUSTON, TX 77034-5425 - (281) 481-5840 - FAX (281) 481-9115
ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 170173 Quest Integrity VTTI Fujairah Tank 204 110965
Page 2 of 7
3. The SE(B) CTOD specimens were compression stress relieved per Annex C.2 of
ISO 15653. All specimens were then pre-cracked at room temperature and tested
per ISO 15653 at 40°F. The results are summarized as follows:
CTOD
Location Specimen [inches] Validity
Old Shell to New Bottom Plate 173-1 δm=0.030 Valid
4. The datasheets, load-displacement traces and photographs of the fractures are

attached.
Page 4 of 7
173-1 173-2 173-3

Figure 1 Shown Actual Size
Photograph showing the Old Shell to New Bottom Plate HAZ CTOD specimens.
Page 5 of 7
Page 6 of 7
Page 7 of 7
Appendix C: Fracture Mechanics Methodology
A fracture mechanics assessment was performed to identify the critical flaw sizes in the new repair welds.
Critical flaw sizes were calculated per Part 9 of API 579 [2].
Crack stability (i.e. the potential for rupture) was assessed using the Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD)
which is described in API 579 [2] Part 9. The FAD enhances linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
assessments by incorporating ductility. This calculation started with a peak stress profile calculated from
the FEA of the un-cracked structure. The stress intensity factor (KI) was calculated along the crack front
for the through thickness stress profile. The stress intensity factor depended on the loading conditions, 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 B1 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). Through-thickness stress profiles from
the FEA were incorporated in the computation of Lr and Kr.

Figure C1. Failure assessment diagram (FAD)
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 [2]. These
methods are widely accepted and are implemented in the commercial software package Signal™ FFS [3],
developed and sold by Quest Integrity.
With the applied stresses and material toughness values, critical defect sizes are 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. The data is 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 Annex 9D. Since the R/t ratio for storage
tanks is very large, the flat plate solutions are applied.

Appendix D: Signal™ Fitness-For-Service Reports

Signal Fitness-For-Service Report
Input Data
Assessment Information:
Assessment Type: Cracking
FFS Code: June 2016 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: 0.442 in
Crack Information:
Shape: Surface crack
Location: Weld Metal
Weld is Stress Relieved: No
Orientation: Parallel to Weld Axis
Material Properties:
Material is Ferritic Steel
Temperature: 0 °F
Young's Modulus: 29000000.00000 psi
Actual Tensile Properties are being used
Parent Metal Yield Strength: 54700 psi
Parent Metal Tensile Strength: 78500 psi
Weld Metal Yield Strength: 54700 psi
Weld Metal Ultimate Strength: 78500 psi
Operating Condition Inputs:
Primary Stresses: Linear
Pmax: 42138 psi
Pmin: -45031 psi
Reference Stresses: Use primary stress distribution
Design Temperature: 0 °F
Results Summary
Part 9 Level 2
(Refer To: June 2016 API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 )
Step By Step Results

Part 9 Level 2
Step by Step Results not applicable for this assessment
Chart
Figures
Date: 06 Apr 2017 Page 1 of 2

Generated By: Signal™ FitnessForService, Version 2017.0406
Signal FFS is written and maintained by Quest Integrity, a Team Industrial Services company
Figure 1. Crack Depth v Crack Length.

Signal Fitness-For-Service Report
Input Data
Assessment Information:
Assessment Type: Cracking
FFS Code: June 2016 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: 0.394 in
Crack Information:
Shape: Surface crack
Location: Weld Metal
Weld is Stress Relieved: No
Orientation: Parallel to Weld Axis
Material Properties:
Material is Ferritic Steel
Temperature: 0 °F
Young's Modulus: 29000000.00000 psi
Actual Tensile Properties are being used
Parent Metal Yield Strength: 54700 psi
Parent Metal Tensile Strength: 78500 psi
Weld Metal Yield Strength: 54700 psi
Weld Metal Ultimate Strength: 78500 psi
Operating Condition Inputs:
Primary Stresses: Linear
Pmax: 44821 psi
Pmin: -33532 psi
Reference Stresses: Use primary stress distribution
Design Temperature: 0 °F
Results Summary
Part 9 Level 2
Step By Step Results

Part 9 Level 2
Step by Step Results not applicable for this assessment
Chart
Figures

Figure 1. Crack Depth v Crack Length.


Sample Report - T 204 VTTI by Quest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Report - T 204 VTTI by Quest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title: Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI TK204

Quest Job Number: 110965

Confidential To: Client, Tank Owner/Operator

Report Issued: April 7, 2017

Prepared By: Lucie Parietti, M.Sc.

Checked By: Mike Turnquist, M.Sc.

Quest Integrity USA, LLC

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 2 of 28

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................2

2. Finite Element Analysis ..............................................................................................................5

3. Material Properties ......................................................................................................................6

4. FEA Stress Results ......................................................................................................................6

5. Fracture Mechanics Analysis ......................................................................................................7

Appendix A: Finite Element Analysis Details ......................................................................................13

Appendix B: Material Test Report from Anderson and Associates ......................................................14

Appendix C: Fracture Mechanics Methodology ...................................................................................22

Appendix D: Signal™ Fitness-For-Service Reports .............................................................................24

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 3 of 28

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 4 of 28

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

2. Finite Element Analysis

Table 1. General dimensions and thicknesses for each shell course.

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 5 of 28

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

Table 2. Material properties used in the fracture mechanics analysis.

4. FEA Stress Results

Table 3. Maximum stress values from FEA.

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 6 of 28

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

5. Fracture Mechanics Analysis

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 7 of 28

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 8 of 28

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 9 of 28

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

Figure 1. FEA mesh – Bottom fillet weld model.

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 10 of 28

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 11 of 28

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

Critical Flaw Size for Bending Stress at Bottom Fillet Weld

flaw on floor side of weld Series1

Figure 4. Critical flaw sizes at the bottom fillet weld.

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 12 of 28

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

Appendix A: Finite Element Analysis Details

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 13 of 28

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

Appendix B: Material Test Report from Anderson and Associates

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 14 of 28

March 31, 2017

Quest Integrity Group

Re: 170173 Quest Integrity VTTI

Dear Mr. Turnquist:

4. The datasheets, load-displacement traces and photographs of the fractures are

173-1 173-2 173-3

Hydro Test Exemption, VTII Tank TK204 110965

Appendix C: Fracture Mechanics Methodology

Report issued 7 April 2017 Page 22 of 28