Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 208–219

www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Fracture analysis of a pressure vessel made

of high strength steel (HSS)
a,* b,1 c,2
M.A. Guerrero , C. Betegón , J. Belzunce
a
Centro Tecnológico del Acero y Materiales Metálicos (Fundación ITMA), Parque Empresarial Principado de Asturias (PEPA),
C/Calafates Parcela L-3.4, 33417 Avilés Asturias, Spain
b
Dpto. de Construcción e Ingenierı́a de Fabricación, Campus de Viesques, Ed. 7, Universidad de Oviedo, 33203 Gijón, Asturias, Spain
c
Dpto. de Ciencia de los Materiales e Ingenierı́a Metalúrgica, Campus de Viesques, Ed.7, Universidad de Oviedo,
33203 Gijón, Asturias, Spain

Available online 12 September 2007

Abstract

The application of design methods based on finite element analysis ‘‘Design by Analysis – Direct Route’’ as an alter-
native to the recommendations based on the experience and formulas ‘‘Design by Formula’’ allows removing the unnec-
essary conservatism of the current design codes. A finite element analysis (FEM) was used to calculate the behaviour of a
pressure vessel (PV) made of high strength steel (P500) subject to the design loads and assuming the existence of the ‘‘worst
case’’ crack allowed by the European standards in order to demonstrate the safe use of these steels and the too conservative
design rules currently applied by the PV manufacture codes. It was demonstrated that the presence of cracks on pressure
vessels made of high strength P500 steel non-detected during non-destructive tests, do not endanger the safety of the vessel,
so its application can be fully successful and safe even under the worst allowed conditions, given way to significant reduc-
tions of wall thicknesses, weights and costs.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pressure vessel failures; Fracture damage; Structural integrity; Cracks

1. Introduction

The European strategy looking for a continuous improvement of their industry competitiveness has been
addressed in the course of the last three decades towards the development of different families of high strength
steels (HSS). Although these steels were successfully developed by the European steel industries, their full use
is nowadays restricted mainly due to a lack of experience of their use in certain sectors and due to the con-
servative design rules currently applied by the pressure vessels (PV) manufacture codes.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 985 12 91 20; fax: +34 985 12 90 08.
E-mail addresses: m.armindo@itma.es (M.A. Guerrero), cova@uniovi.es (C. Betegón), belzunce@uniovi.es (J. Belzunce).
1
Tel.: +34 985 18 22 29; fax: +34 985 18 20 55.
2
Tel.: +34 985 18 20 24; fax: +34 985 18 20 22.

1350-6307/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2007.06.006
 M.A. Guerrero et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 208–219 209

In order to overcome these obstacles and develop a new European PV EN 13445 standard [1], different
research projects have been performed on the application of the Design By Analysis-Direct Route (DBA)
method as an alternative to the traditional Design By Formula (DBF) analysis, with the aim of allowing a
reduction of safety factors, the use of higher nominal design strengths and the application of advanced high
strength steels. Finally, reduction of wall thickness can be obtained and, consequently, reduced costs, regard-
ing specially welding and post weld heat treatments (PWHT), as well as transport and lifting costs. One of
these projects was ECOPRESS ‘‘Economical and Safe Design of Pressure Vessels Applying New Modern
Steels’’ [2] and some of the project final results will be presented in this paper.

2. Objective and methodology

A fracture mechanics analysis was carried out and validated considering a cracked pressure vessel made of
high strength steel P500 (yield strength: 500 MPa) and its structural integrity was assessed.
All the analyses were performed by means of FEM, using the ANSYS finite element program. The meth-
odology employed included the following steps:

 Validation of the employed FEM analysis on models constructed using experimental Wide Plate
Tests.
 Calculation of fracture mechanics parameters: stress intensity factor ‘‘KI’’ and ‘‘J-integral’’ in the wide plate
sample models and validation of the obtained results by means of empirical formulations.
 Fracture mechanics analysis of a PV made of HSS P500, assuming a semi-elliptical crack in the higher
stressed area (skirt to bottom head junction).

3. HSS ‘‘P500’’ material properties

This steel was already been used for the manufacture of many pressure vessels. Although practical experi-
ence in welding and PWHT are not really a problem with this steel, it is indirectly excluded by EN 13445 stan-
dard, Part 2, where in order to avoid brittle fracture, the simple method exposed in Annex B is limited to steels
with maximum yield strengths of 460 MPa.
Conventional mechanical properties and fracture toughness of the HSS P500 were obtained from tensile
and Charpy-V tests [2].
The HSS P500 fracture toughness evolution with temperature was obtained from the results of Charpy
impact tests performed on welded specimens with the notch placed in the heat affected zone at 1 mm from
the fusion line (coarse grain region). Two different methodologies were used: the Master Curve [3], and the
SINTAP procedure [4]. As can be seen in Fig. 1 both procedures give similar results. A variation of KJC frac-
ture toughness between 50 and 300 MPa m1/2 has been determined from 150 C to 20 C.

Fig. 1. (a) Master curve analysis, and (b) SINTAP procedure analysis.
210 M.A. Guerrero et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 208–219

4. Simulation of ‘‘Wide Plate Test’’ by means of FEM

Wide Plate Tests were performed on P500 steel plates with thicknesses of 500 mm width and 30 mm thick-
ness. Double edge cracked tensile (DECT) specimens were used. All the specimens were first notched on both
sides and then precracked by cyclic loading until a ratio of 2a/W = 0.2 was attained (30 mm crack at each
side). All the specimens were instrumented with different gauges placed as shown in Fig. 2:

 S1 and S2 strain gauges used for the strain measurement in the central region of the specimen.
 C1 to C4 clip gauges for the measurement of the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD).
 E1 to E3 inductive gauges for displacement measurements.

With the aim of simulate these experimental tests, a structural calculation was performed using a 3D FEM
model. Taking advantage of the geometry symmetry in relation with the three middle planes of the specimen,
only one eighth of the specimen was modelled (see Fig. 3). The element type used to build the model was the
SOLID45, 3D structural solid element. This element is defined by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom
at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. In order to improve the accuracy around the
crack tip, the SOLID45 elements containing the crack tip nodes were replaced by SOLID95 elements, a higher
order version having 20 nodes. Thus, the final 3D FEM model had 2332 nodes and 1740 elements (Fig. 4) and
the position of all the gauges above mentioned was taken into account, locating nodes in their positions in
order to compare both FEM and laboratory results.
Fig. 5 shows a good correspondence between the results obtained in the laboratory tests [2] and by means of
our FEM numerical simulation.

Fig. 2. Wide Plate Specimen with instrumentation.

Fig. 3. FEM model from the Wide Plate Specimen geometry.

 M.A. Guerrero et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 208–219 211

Fig. 4. Finite element model (one eighth) with nodes on the gauges locations.

5. KJ stress intensity factor calculation

The J-integral is defined as a path-independent line integral that characterises the whole field of stresses and
strains near the crack tip in an elasto-plastic material. Assuming X–Y is the crack plane being the X-axis par-
allel to the crack growth direction, Eq. (1) gives the expression applied for J-integral calculation.
Z Z  
oU x oU y
J int ¼ W dy  tx þ ty dS ð1Þ
C C ox oy
The stress intensity factor KJ was obtained by means of Eq. (2), which relates this parameter with the J-
integral.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
E
KJ ¼  J int ð2Þ
ð1  m2 Þ
Using the described FEM model and applying Eqs. (1) and (2), the evolution of J-integral and stress intensity
factor KJ were calculated as a function of the applied stress. In order to determine the influence of the spec-
imen thickness, these parameters were evaluated at different depths on the thickness direction: ‘‘t/2’’ (centre),
‘‘t/4’’ (quarter thickness) and ‘‘t’’ (on the surface), as can be seen in Fig. 6. This figure also shows the stress
intensity factor KJ calculated from expression (3), which is available in the literature for this kind of specimen
(DENT) [5].
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
K I ¼ r  p  a  F ð1=W Þ ð3Þ
where
h a  2  3  4 i
1:122  0:561 w
 0:205 wa þ 0:471 wa þ 0:190 wa
F ða=W Þ ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
1  wa
212 M.A. Guerrero et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 208–219

Fig. 5. Results. Laboratory Testing vs. FEM.

The FEM results at mid thickness match very well with the results obtained using expression (3) because this
formula is defined under the hypothesis of plane strain condition. Nevertheless, at quarter thickness and espe-
cially on the surface of the specimen, the divergence between both results increases because the hypothesis of
plane strain is no longer valid.
M.A. Guerrero et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 208–219 213

Fig. 6. KJ evolution.

Fig. 7. Technical drawing of pressure vessel. Skirt detail.

214 M.A. Guerrero et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 208–219

6. Example of pressure vessel. Fracture mechanics analysis

6.1. Introduction to the fracture mechanics model

Structural fracture mechanics based calculations generally use an initial crack geometry of a defined
size, which represents an assumed crack size that could be overseen during non-destructive testing and

Fig. 8. Coarse finite element model. Skirt to head joint detail.

Fig. 9. Radial, hoop and axial stresses.

 M.A. Guerrero et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 208–219 215

is large enough to cover possible ‘‘worst case’’ scenarios that may occur during the lifetime of the
structure.
The pressure vessel used in this work can be seen in Fig. 7. It was made of HSS P500 and was designed to
support an internal pressure of 7.4 MPa at room temperature.

Fig. 10. Schematic representation of the hoop crack.

Fig. 11. Meshing of the cracked sub-model.

216 M.A. Guerrero et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 208–219

Fig. 12. The three principal stress distributions along the crack tip.

In order to assess the structural integrity of the vessel, the stability verification at the skirt to vessel junction is
mandatory. So, a stress analysis was carried out using FEM in order to identify the highest stressed area, where
the worst crack would be situated. The analysis was performed by means of a sub-modeling technique, in which
the full structure is modeled with a coarse mesh while a sub-model of this specific region is finely meshed.

6.2. Stress analysis. Coarse model

A 3D solid finite element model was developed using SOLID45 finite elements. Due to geometry, load and
constraint symmetries, only a half of the structure was needed to be modelled and meshed, given way to 37 800
elements and 51 870 nodes. Fig. 8 shows the finite element model and a detail of the skirt to head joint.

Fig. 13. The three principal stress distributions along the solid ligament.
 M.A. Guerrero et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 208–219 217

The following structural loads (supplied by the PV design and manufacture company) were applied: self-
weight of the critical region, weight of the rest of the vessel, a 7.4 MPa internal pressure and also a shear
and a moment of 155 000 N and 763 000 Nm, respectively applied on the bottom tangent line, due to the max-
imum of wind, earthquake and explosion loads. Finally, the model was constrained on the lower part of the
skirt.

Fig. 14. Stress intensity factor KI along the crack tip.

Fig. 15. Contour plot of axial stress (Pa).

218 M.A. Guerrero et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 208–219

The analysis was performed considering a linear-elastic material behaviour, using a Young’s modulus of
210 GPa and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3, in order to obtain the radial, hoop and axial stresses. Fig. 9 shows the
contour plot of the mentioned stresses and also depicts the highly stressed area of the junction under axial
stress. Just in this area, a horizontal ‘‘worst case’’ crack has been placed to perform the fracture mechanics
analysis.

6.3. Fracture mechanics analysis. Fine sub-model with crack

A fracture mechanics analysis was conducted to determine the magnitude and distribution of the stress
intensity factor along the tip of the crack under the design loads. The shape and size of the crack were defined
as the worst case allowed by the European standard, a semi-elliptical crack under tensile load with a depth
a = t/4 and a shape ratio a/c = 0.33, where ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘c’’ represent both semi-axis of the crack; and ‘‘t’’ is
the thickness of the plate, thus, the final size of the analysed crack was 7.5 · 45.5 mm (see Fig. 10). The same
approach is also used by the American ASME Code [6].
A 3D cracked sub-model was then developed using SOLD45 finite elements. This sub-model, represented in
Fig. 11, consisted of 48188 elements and 54 858 nodes. Displacements calculated on the boundary of the coarse
model were specified as boundary conditions for the sub-model and were calculated by means of subroutines
included in the ANSYS software.

6.4. Fracture mechanics results

The three principal stress distributions along the crack tip are presented in Fig. 12. The axial stress is nor-
mal to the surface of the crack and the one that causes the crack to open. Fig. 13 shows the value of the three
principal stresses along the solid ligament and finally the stress intensity factor KI along the crack tip is pre-
sented in Fig. 14. The contour plot of axial stresses is also shown in Fig. 15.
As it is shown in Fig. 13, the size of the plastic area is small compared to the size of the solid ligament, so
the analysis performed based on linear elastic fracture mechanics is a proper analysis.
As it is pointed out in Fig. 14, the maximum stress intensity factor KI at the crack tip is 80 MPa m1/2, and
this value is clearly below the average room temperature fracture toughness KIC of the HSS P500 (about
240 MPa m1/2, Fig. 1), so crack growth will not be feasible even taking into account the ‘‘worst scenario’’ con-
sidered by the European standard, so that the manufacture of PVs using P500 high strength steel gives place to
safe and reliable enough structures and can be used to reduce the pressure vessel wall thickness, their weight
and cost.

7. Conclusions

A FEM analysis was used to calculate the behaviour of a pressure vessel made of high strength steel subject
to the design loads and assuming the existence of the ‘‘worst case’’ crack allowed by the European standards in
order to demonstrate the safe use of these steels and the too conservative design rules currently applied by the
PV manufacture codes.
Our FEM analysis was checked by the simulation of a Wide Plate Test. A good agreement was obtained
with the experimental values determined using strain gauges and with the analytical KI expression available
for this specific geometry.
It was demonstrated that the presence of cracks on pressure vessels made of P500 high strength steel non-
detected during non-destructive tests, do not endanger the safety of the vessel, from the fracture mechanics
point of view, since the maximum values of the stress intensity factor along the crack tip is always much lower
than the room temperature fracture toughness of the material (coarse grain heat affected zone). That is why,
although high strength P500 steel is excluded by EN 13445 Part 2, Annex B for the manufacture of pressure
vessels, because it has a yield strength higher than 460 MPa, its application can be fully successful and safe
even under the worst allowed conditions, given way to significant reductions of wall thicknesses, weights
and costs.
 M.A. Guerrero et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 208–219 219

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Pablo Nuno from Felguera Caldereria Pesada S.A. for his contribution to this article,
supplying the technical information of the real pressure vessel as well as his suggestions during the analyses.

References

[1] EN 13445. Unfired Pressure Vessels – Part 3 Design.

[2] ECOPRESS. Economical and safe design of pressures vessels applying new modern steels, mid term report (August 2001), Final
Report, December 2003.
[3] Wallin K. Application of the master curve method to crack initiation and crack arrest. In: Proceedings of ASME pressure vessels and
piping conference, PVP-vol. 393, Fracture, Fatigue and Weld Residual Stress. Boston, Massachusetts, August 1–5, 1999.
[4] Wallin K, Nevasmaa P. Structural integrity assessment procedures for european industry (SINTAP) – Sub-Task 3.2 Report:
Methodology for the treatment of fracture toughness data – procedure and validation, Report No. VAL A: SINTAP/VTT/7. VTT
Manufacturing Technology, Espoo; 1998. p. 52.
[5] Anderson TL. Fracture Mechanics. Fundamentals and Applications. Boca Raton, U.S.A.: CRC Press; 1991.
[6] ASME Boiler and Vessel Code, Section XI, Rules for in-service inspection of nuclear power plant components. American Society for
Mechanical Engineering, Articles A-3000, Method of KI-determination; 1998.