PSI - Issue 60

Varsha Florist et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 60 (2024) 614–630 623 10 Varsha Florist, Santhoshkumar R, A. Vamsi, Sajju V, Sarath Mohan, Sanjeev Kumar, Dhanoop A, Venukuttan C, M.K. Sundaresan, SVS Narayana Murty / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2024) 000 – 000

In each cycle of MEOP /proof pressure repeatability of the measured values of strains was as expected C Pany (2012). At proof pressure, good match was observed between predictions and test results at all locations as shown from Fig. 9 where microstrain is the strain value x 10 6 , i.e, strain in microns. Comparison between predicted microstrains and test results is given in Table-2. Predictions vis-a-vis test value of hoop strain up to burst are shown in Fig. 10.

Table 2. Strain comparison between test and predictions

Gauge No.

Test 4139 1210 3794 1848 3702 1972

Prediction

Gauge No.

Test 3475 1133 3563

Prediction

S1H S1L S2H S2L

3820

S3BH S3BL S4AH S4AL S4BH S4BL

3330

896

948

3796 1848 3330

3330

786

948

S3AH S3AL

3917 2312

3330

948

948

10000 12000 14000 16000

H_S1 Pred. (4.06mm) H_Test values

2000 4000 6000 8000

HOOP STRAIN (microstrain)

0 102030405060 0

PRESSURE (MPa)

Fig.10. Hoop strain predictions and test values upto burst pressure

The full scale tank had undergone qualification test up to burst to prove the design margins.