FFS Analysis

Title: Fitness for service (FFS) analysis for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216
Client: VTTI
Attn: Sony Manikandan
Quest Job Number: 109696
Confidential To: Client, Tank Owner/Operator
Report Issued: 21 July 2016
Prepared By: Mike Turnquist

Consulting Engineer, Advanced Engineering
Checked By: Kyle Sandoval

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 for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696
Executive Summary
The purpose of this analysis was to establish that repaired tank 216 owned and operated by VTTI in Fujairah,
UAE is fit for continued service without the need for a hydrostatic test by application of fracture mechanics
technology per API 653 [1]. The tank is to undergo an installation of a new annular ring, new patch plates
on the floor, and a partial replacement of the floor plates.
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 216 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.
The results for TK216 can be inferred for TK209/210/211/212/216/217/218 given that all the requirements
listed below are met:
Repairs to these tanks are the same as what was analyzed in this report (replace annular plates,
install floor patch plates, partial replacement of floor plates)
The thickness of the new annular plates are the same as what was analyzed in this report (10 mm)
The new repair welds are done using the same weld procedures as the CTOD sample for TK209
which was tested by Anderson and Associates (see section 3.2 and Appendix A)
The tanks are in similar service (same product and general operating conditions)
The tanks are of the same basic geometry (height and diameter)
The tanks were constructed around the same time and the plates came from the same mill
Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 2 of 29

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.

Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 2
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5
2. Tank Load and Stress Analysis ............................................................................................... 5

2.1 Shell Analysis ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Floor Analysis ............................................................................................................ 6
3. Fracture Mechanics Assessment ............................................................................................. 7

3.1 Crack Stability Calculations ....................................................................................... 7
3.2 Material Fracture Toughness and Tensile Properties ................................................... 8
3.3 Critical Crack Size Calculations ................................................................................. 9
3.4 Comparison of Fracture Mechanics Results with Inspection........................................ 9
4. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 10
5. References ............................................................................................................................ 11
6. Figures ................................................................................................................................. 12
Appendix A: Material Test Report from Anderson and Associates.................................................... 16
Appendix B: Signal Fitness-For-Service Reports .......................................................................... 24

1. Introduction
The purpose of this analysis was to establish that repaired tank 216 owned and operated by VTTI in Fujairah,
UAE is fit for continued service without the need for a hydrostatic test by application of fracture mechanics
technology per API 653 [1]. The tank is to undergo an installation of a new annular ring and patch plates
on the floor.
In order to determine if the repaired tank is fit for service without the need for a hydrostatic test, a fracture
mechanics analysis was performed to establish the critical sizes of surface connected defects located in the
repaired regions. If the critical sizes of defects located in these regions are large enough such that ultrasonic,
dye penetrant, and/or magnetic particle inspection can find such flaws, and these flaws are eliminated, the
tank can be considered safe.
2. Tank Load and Stress Analysis
In order to perform the fracture mechanics analysis, the stresses imposed on the regions of interest were
established using finite element analyses (FEA). Two finite element models were created, one to examine
the stresses in the shell and a second to examine the stresses in the floor and annular plates. Both models
simulated the storage tank under hydrostatic test conditions. The tank was filled to the full 20 meter
(65.6 feet) fill height with 1.0 specific gravity fluid.
2.1 Shell Analysis
The FEA shell model is shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the model boundary conditions, including z-
direction (vertical) constraints on all bottom nodes in the model. Symmetry boundary conditions were
applied such that only half the tank was modeled. Figure 3 shows the internal hydrostatic pressure applied
to the tank, as well as the self-weight of the tank due to gravity.
The FEA model contained 54,064 reduced integration shell elements. These were linear elements, meaning
that they did not include mid-side nodes. The model was generated using the ABAQUS [2] modeling
program. Measured thicknesses of the various shell courses were provided by Aries Marine and Engineering
Services, and the thicknesses used in the model represented the smaller of the minimum measured and
nominal thickness in each shell course. These values and the general tank dimensions are summarized in
Table 1.

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

Item Dimension
Tank diameter 46 meters (150.9 feet)
Total tank height 20 meters (65.6 feet)
Course 1 thickness 22.4 millimeters (0.882 inches)
Floor Plate Thickness 5.59 millimeters (0.220 inches)
Annular Ring Thickness 10.0 millimeters (0.394 inches)
Bending stresses were examined at the bottom fillet weld connecting the tank wall to the tank annular ring
plates. External surface bending stresses are shown in Figure 4 while the internal surface bending stresses
can be found in Figure 5. The maximum bending stresses were identified on the outside of the tank at the
bottom fillet weld where the bending stress was compressive due to the applied fluid pressure moment. The
corresponding stress was then extracted on the opposite side of the shell thickness, such that a linear through-
thickness stress profile could be established. The stresses on the inside of the tank were tensile. A summary
of the hoop and bending stress results is presented in Table 2. Note that the stress values reported in Table
2 assume a weld joint efficiency of 0.85.
2.2 Floor Analysis
In order to evaluate the bending stresses in the tank floor and annular ring plates, an axisymmetric volume
element model was used. The tank mesh was assumed to sit on a soil foundation. This configuration allowed
for the slight upward bending of the floor near the chime due to the hydrostatic fluid load. The ring wall
foundation was represented by an analytic rigid surface where the tank was allowed to separate from the
foundation should the pressure forcing the two surfaces into contact drop to zero.

The maximum bending stress in the floor and annular plates occurred on the top side of the annular plate
near the toe of the inside chime weld. Figure 6 displays the bending stress distribution in the tank annular
plate at the floor to shell weld. On both sides of the weld, the stress profile was almost pure bending. Note
that stress values reported in Table 2 assume a weld joint efficiency of 0.85.
Table 2. Maximum stress values from FEA.

Stress Value
Max. Inside Bending - Shell 322.2 MPa (46,729 psi)
Min. Outside Bending - Shell -322.2 MPa (-46,729 psi)
Max. Top Bending Floor 411.0 MPa (59,605 psi)
Min. Bottom Bending - Floor -341.9 MPa (-49,587 psi)
3. Fracture Mechanics Assessment
3.1 Crack Stability Calculations
The stability of the cracks (i.e. the potential for rupture) was assessed using the Failure Assessment Diagram
(FAD) which is described in API 579/ASME FFS-1 [3]. The FAD enhances linear elastic fracture
mechanics (LEFM) assessments by incorporating ductility. This calculation starts with a stress profile at a
critical location calculated from an FEA of the un-cracked structure. The stress intensity factor (KI) is
calculated along the crack front for the through thickness stress profile. The stress intensity factor depends
on the loading condition, 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 7 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). The through-thickness stress profiles from
the FEA were incorporated in the computation of Lr - Kr.

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 579-2007 [3].
These methods are widely accepted and are implemented in the commercial software package, SignalTM FFS
[4], developed and sold by Quest Integrity USA, LLC.
3.2 Material Fracture Toughness and Tensile Properties
Part of the hydro test exemption analysis was a calculation of the critical flaw sizes according to fracture
mechanics methodologies. The material fracture toughness is required to perform an accurate fracture
mechanics assessment. Along with the toughness estimate, yield and ultimate tensile strength values for the
tank material are necessary for the fracture mechanics analysis. The toughness (as measured by CTOD) and
tensile properties were obtained by destructive tests done by Anderson and Associates. A copy of the test
report is included in Appendix A. Table 3 summarizes the material values used for the fracture mechanics
analysis.
The sample for CTOD testing was taken from TK209. This tank is in similar service to TK216. Also, it was
constructed around the same time and the plates came from the same mill. The weld procedures used to
prepare the sample were the same as the procedures used for the TK216 repair welds. Therefore, the CTOD
test results for the TK209 sample can be inferred for TK216.
Table 3. Material properties used in the fracture mechanics analysis.

Material property Bottom Fillet Weld
Yield Strength 394.4 MPa (57.2 ksi)
Ultimate Tensile Strength 552.3 MPa (80.1 ksi)
Fracture toughness from CTOD 736.6 m (29.0 mils)

These material test results can be inferred for TK TK209/210/211/212/216/217/218 given that all the
requirements listed below are met:
The thickness of the plates are the same as for the test sample
The new repair welds are done using the same weld procedures as the test sample
3.3 Critical Crack Size Calculations
With the applied stresses and material toughness values, critical defect sizes for regions of interest could be
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. Signal Fitness-for-Service [4] was used to establish the range of critical
defect sizes that could lead to sudden fracture failure. The data 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/ASME FFS-1 Annex E [3] for flat plates. Since the R/t ratio is very large, the flat plate solutions
were applied. These distributions are uniform through the plate thickness and have a magnitude equal to
the material yield strength. Examples of the input data and output plots for the Signal FFS program are
included in Appendix B.
Figure 8 shows the defect size diagram for flaws in the fillet weld between the first shell course and the tank
annular ring.
3.4 Comparison of Fracture Mechanics Results with Inspection
According to ASME standard procedures, flaw depths greater than 1.578 mm (0.0625 inch) are considered
readily identifiable with common inspection methods. Relevant rounded indications greater than 4.762 mm
(0.1875 inch) 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. Using these criteria for acceptance, it is observed that the critical
defect sizes established by the fracture mechanics analysis were greater than the relevant rounded indication
size (detectability reference).

4. Conclusions
The finite element analysis and fracture mechanics calculations showed that tank 216 is considered fit for
service as 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. This statement is made based
on the assumption that the new welds were inspected per API 653 requirements for major repairs. The
analysis showed that repairs made to the tank do not require a hydro test based on the guidelines
API 653 [1].
The results for TK216 can be inferred for TK209/210/211/212/216/217/218 given that all the requirements
listed below are met:
Repairs to these tanks are the same as what was analyzed in this report (replace annular plates,
install floor patch plates, partial replacement of floor plates)
The thickness of the new annular plates are the same as what was analyzed in this report (10 mm)
The new repair welds are done using the same weld procedures as the CTOD sample for TK209
which was tested by Anderson and Associates (see section 3.2 and Appendix A)
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.

5. References
1. The American Petroleum Institute Standard 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Reconstruction. Fourth Edition 2012 American Petroleum Institute.
2. ABAQUS/Standard 6.14-2, Dassault Systmes Simulia Corp., 1301 Atwood Ave, Suite 101W,
Johnston, Rhode Island 02919, USA. www.abaqus.com.
3. Fitness-for-Service, API 579/ASME FFS-1, June 5, 2007, API 579 Second Edition, The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 29996-4070, USA.
4. Signal Fitness-for-Service commercial software, Quest Integrity Group LLC. 1965 57 th Court
North, Suite 100, Boulder, CO, www.questintegrity.com.

6. Figures
Figure 1. Shell model used for FEA.
Figure 2. Shell model boundary conditions.

Figure 3. Shell model hydrostatic pressure and gravity load.
Figure 4. Bending stress on the outside surface of the tank. Stress scale in psi, deformation scale 20x.

Figure 5. Bending stress on the inside surface of the tank. Stress scale in psi, deformation scale 20x.
Figure 6. Bending stress at the bottom fillet weld. Stress scale in psi, deformation scale 20x.

Figure 7. Failure Assessment Diagram.
Critical Flaw Size for Bending Stress at Bottom Fillet Weld

16.0
14.0
12.0
Crack Depth a (mm)
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
detectability
2.0
reference
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Crack Length 2c (mm)
flaw on shell side of weld flaw on floor side of weld
Figure 8. Critical flaw sizes at the bottom fillet weld.

Appendix A: Material Test Report from Anderson and Associates

Appendix B: Signal Fitness-For-Service Reports

Signal Fitness-For-Service Report
Input Data
Assessment Information:
Assessment Type: Cracking
FFS Code: June 2007 API 579-1/ASME FFS-1
Units: lbs - in - psi
Analysis By:
Project Information:
Analysis Type: Single
Equipment Inputs:
Equipment: Flat Plate
Flat Width: 100 in
Flat Thickness: 0.394 in
Crack Information:
Flaw dimensions - N/A
Material Properties:
Material: Unknown Design Code
Youngs Modulus: 29000000 psi
Actual Tensile Properties are being used
Parent Metal Yield Strength: 57200 psi
Parent Metal Tensile Strength: 80100 psi
Weld Metal Yield Strength: 57200 psi
Weld Metal Ultimate Strength: 80100 psi
Operating Condition Inputs:

Primary Stresses: Linear
Pmax: 59605 psi
Pmin: -49587 psi
Reference Stresses: Use primary stress distribution
Results Summary
Part 9 Level 2
Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 0.34
Analysis stopped due to through-wall crack, A > T, Aspect ratio = 1
(Refer To: June 2007 API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 )
Step By Step Results

Part 9 Level 2
Date: 7/20/2016 Page 1 of 2

Generated By: Signal FitnessForService Professional Edition, Version 2015.0827
Signal FFS is written and maintained by Quest Integrity Group, a Team Industrial Services company
Step by Step Results not applicable for this assessment
Charts
Figures
Figure 1. Crack Depth v Crack Length.
Date: 7/20/2016 Page 2 of 2

Signal Fitness-For-Service Report
Input Data
Assessment Information:
Assessment Type: Cracking
FFS Code: June 2007 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: 0.882 in
Crack Information:
Shape: Surface crack
Location: W eld Metal
Weld is Stress Relieved: No
Orientation: Parallel to Weld Axis
Flaw dimensions - N/A
Material Properties:
Temperature: 15 F
Young's Modulus: 29000000.0000 psi
Actual Tensile Properties are being used
Parent Metal Yield Strength: 57200 psi
Parent Metal Tensile Strength: 80100 psi
Weld Metal Yield Strength: 57200 psi
Weld Metal Ultimate Strength: 80100 psi
Operating Condition Inputs:

Primary Stresses: Linear
Pmax: 46729 psi
Pmin: -46729 psi
Reference Stresses: Use primary stress distribution
Results Summary
Part 9 Level 2
Date: 7/19/2016 Page 1 of 3

Step By Step Results

Part 9 Level 2
Step by Step Results not applicable for this assessment
Charts
Figures
Date: 7/19/2016 Page 2 of 3

Figure 1. Crack Depth v Crack Length.
Date: 7/19/2016 Page 3 of 3


FFS Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FFS Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Title: Fitness for service (FFS) analysis for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216

Quest Job Number: 109696

Confidential To: Client, Tank Owner/Operator

Report Issued: 21 July 2016

Prepared By: Mike Turnquist

Checked By: Kyle Sandoval

Quest Integrity USA, LLC

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 2 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 3 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

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

2. Tank Load and Stress Analysis ............................................................................................... 5

3. Fracture Mechanics Assessment ............................................................................................. 7

Appendix A: Material Test Report from Anderson and Associates.................................................... 16

Appendix B: Signal Fitness-For-Service Reports .......................................................................... 24

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 4 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

2. Tank Load and Stress Analysis

2.1 Shell Analysis

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 5 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

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

2.2 Floor Analysis

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 6 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

Table 2. Maximum stress values from FEA.

3. Fracture Mechanics Assessment

3.1 Crack Stability Calculations

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 7 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

3.2 Material Fracture Toughness and Tensile Properties

Table 3. Material properties used in the fracture mechanics analysis.

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 8 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

3.3 Critical Crack Size Calculations

3.4 Comparison of Fracture Mechanics Results with Inspection

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 9 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 10 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 11 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

Figure 1. Shell model used for FEA.

Figure 2. Shell model boundary conditions.

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 12 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

Figure 3. Shell model hydrostatic pressure and gravity load.

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 13 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 14 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

Figure 7. Failure Assessment Diagram.

Critical Flaw Size for Bending Stress at Bottom Fillet Weld

flaw on shell side of weld flaw on floor side of weld

Figure 8. Critical flaw sizes at the bottom fillet weld.

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

Appendix A: Material Test Report from Anderson and Associates

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 16 of 29

Hydro Test Exemption for VTTI Fujairah Tank 216 109696

Appendix B: Signal Fitness-For-Service Reports

Report issued 21 July 2016 Page 24 of 29

Operating Condition Inputs: