The objective of this paper is to present the technical basis used for developing acceptance/rejection limits for seamless, high pressure gas cylinders that can be used at the time of retesting the cylinders. The development of acceptance/rejection limits for cylinders is done in three steps. First, the “critical flaw sizes” (e.g. depth and length or area) for selected types of flaws are established by an analysis procedure that has been verified by experimental tests. Next the “allowable flaw sizes” are calculated by modifying (reducing) the size of the “critical flaw sizes” for each cylinder by adjusting for fatigue crack growth that may occur during the use of the cylinder. Finally the “acceptance/rejection criteria” is established to take into account other factors such as all the expected operating conditions that the cylinders may see in service and the reliability and detectability of the specific inspection equipment to be and to adjust the “allowable flaw sizes” to provide an additional margin of safety. This acceptance/rejection limits have been incorporated in recently published ISO Technical Report TR 22694: 2008 [1]. In this work, the API 579 “Recommended Practice for Fitness-for-Service” [2] was used to calculate the “critical flaw sizes” for a range of cylinder sizes and strength levels. For this study the “critical flaw size” is defined as the size of the flaw that will cause the cylinders to fail at the test pressure of the cylinder. The results of flawed-cylinder burst tests were used to experimentally verify the calculated “critical flaw sizes”. The “allowable flaw sizes” were then calculated by using well established fatigue crack growth rate data for steel and aluminum alloys to allow for the expected amount of fatigue crack growth that may occur during the specified retesting intervals. A limited number of tests were conducted to verify the “allowable flaw size” calculations. Further adjustments are made to the “allowable flaw sizes” to define the “acceptance/rejection criteria” to be used during cylinder retesting.
Skip Nav Destination
ASME 2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 26–30, 2009
Prague, Czech Republic
Conference Sponsors:
- Pressure Vessels and Piping
ISBN:
978-0-7918-4364-2
PROCEEDINGS PAPER
Technical Basis for Acceptance/Rejection Criteria for Flaws in High Pressure Gas Cylinder
Mahendra D. Rana,
Mahendra D. Rana
Praxair, Inc., Tonawanda, NY
Search for other works by this author on:
Henry Holroyd
Henry Holroyd
Luxfer Gas Cylinders, Riverside, CA
Search for other works by this author on:
Mahendra D. Rana
Praxair, Inc., Tonawanda, NY
John H. Smith
Consultant, Potomac, MD
Henry Holroyd
Luxfer Gas Cylinders, Riverside, CA
Paper No:
PVP2009-77180, pp. 237-245; 9 pages
Published Online:
July 9, 2010
Citation
Rana, MD, Smith, JH, & Holroyd, H. "Technical Basis for Acceptance/Rejection Criteria for Flaws in High Pressure Gas Cylinder." Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. Volume 1: Codes and Standards. Prague, Czech Republic. July 26–30, 2009. pp. 237-245. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/PVP2009-77180
Download citation file:
13
Views
Related Articles
The Use of “Fitness for Service” Assessment Procedures to Establish Allowable Flaw Sizes in Steel Cylinders
J. Pressure Vessel Technol (May,2004)
The Use of “Fitness for Service” Assessment Procedures to Establish Critical Flaw Sizes in High-Pressure Gas Cylinders
J. Pressure Vessel Technol (May,2003)
Reliability Study on a New Integrity Pressure Relief Device in Nonrefillable Steel Gas Cylinder
J. Pressure Vessel Technol (October,2018)
Related Chapters
Fatigue Crack Growth Rates of API X70 Pipeline Steels in Pressurized Hydrogen Gas Compared with an X52 Pipeline in Hydrogen Service
International Hydrogen Conference (IHC 2016): Materials Performance in Hydrogen Environments
Fatigue Crack Growth of Pipeline Steels in Gaseous Hydrogen- Predictive Model Calibrated to API-5L X52
International Hydrogen Conference (IHC 2012): Hydrogen-Materials Interactions
Defect Assessment
Pipeline Integrity Assurance: A Practical Approach