PSI - Issue 60

Varsha Florist et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 60 (2024) 614–630 625 12 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

Table 3. Comparison of strains between test and predictions for the full scale pressure vessel. Gauge No. Test

Prediction

01-L

1021 3599

891

01-H 02-L 02-H 03-L 03-H 04-L 04-H

3776

489

493

1564 2441 2392 2324 2531 2673 2890 1228 3046 1758 3434 2278 2908

1543 2346 2548 2355 2545 2305 3119 1718 3464 1926 3610 2484 3203

05A-L 05A-H 05B-L 05B-H 06A-L 06A-H 06B-L 06B-H

10000

L at Control Location H at Control Location

8000

6000

4000

2000

STRAIN (microstrain)

0 2 4 6 8 101214161820 0

PRESSURE (MPa)

Fig. 13. Hoop (H) and meridional (L) strain test values upto burst pressure

The tensile tests of preforms and first article inspection at 10 mm thickness level are represented in Fig. 14 and 15, respectively. The tensile data at 4.2 mm thickness level for all production batch shells has been plotted in Fig. 16.