TIP 0402-28

ISSUED – 1999 REVISED – 2007 ©2007 TAPPI

This document describes how to inspect fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) equipment that is already in service (“used”) to
determine its condition, knowledge of which is used to assess fitness for continued service and to plan repairs. Three
complementary types of inspection are described: (1) External inspection with the equipment in service (supplemented with
infrared thermography inspection); (2) External inspection with it out of service; (3) Internal inspection. In general all three
inspections should be done for a complete inspection. Inspection methods, including infra-red thermography, Barcol hardness,
acoustic emission testing, spark testing and radiography are discussed. These inspection guidelines apply to conventional FRP
equipment, including tanks, piping, stacks, ducts, etc., and to “dual laminate” FRP equipment. Inspection of resin-based linings,
which can be FRP laminates or resin vehicles filled with inert materials and trowel or spray-applied, is not directly covered
although the general principles and practices discussed here can be applied where such linings are protective barriers for metal
and non-metal substrates.

The information and data contained in this document were prepared by a

technical committee of the Association.

secret laws.document is the most recent edition published.

Best practice for inspecting used fiber-reinforced plastics

(FRP) equipment
Scope

Safety precautions

These guidelines involve internal and external inspection of vessels, tanks and other equipment in pulp and paper mills. Prior to
conducting such inspections, the inspector should know the plant or mill’s safety policies and practices for working around, on top of
or inside the specific equipment involved. The owner/operator of the equipment is responsible for ensuring adequate safety policies
and practices are in effect and that they meet local, state and federal health and safety requirements for such work.

Basic Structure of FRP Tanks and Vessels

General construction concepts

Fiber-reinforced, thermosetting resin composite materials are called fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP), Glass-Reinforced Plastic (GRP) or
Reinforced Thermosetting Resin Plastic (RTRP). “FRP” is used to represent all these terms in this document because it is widely
recognized and glass is not the only fiber reinforcing material used. [ASTM or ASME standards provide guidelines on testing FRP
materials and on methods of construction for FRP equipment.]

FRP equipment typically has two layered construction elements:

The structural wall provides the shape and strength of the structure.
The corrosion liner protects the process side of the structural wall against chemical attack. (In some cases, e.g. in some variants of mass-
produced FRP pipe, the corrosion barrier is minimal or omitted.)

A major difference between these two composite-construction elements is their resin-to-glass ratios, which also defines many of their
respective properties. Resins in composites are brittle, not very strong materials with good chemical resistance. Glass fibers have
good tensile strength, but are not in a form to contain materials and can be chemically attacked by some environments. This is why
the corrosion barrier/liner laminate typically has > 80%

TIP Category: Automatic Review (10 years) TAPPI

resin content (the veil-reinforced “inner surface” layer has > 90% resin), and the structural laminate typically has between 30-60%
resin, depending on the laminate design and precisely how it was constructed.

The corrosion barrier/liner and structural wall laminates usually differ in thickness, which relates to their respective design functions.
The resin-rich, corrosion liner must be purposely designed for the exposure conditions. The corrosion barrier/liner typically is regarded
as sacrificial and not considered as contributing to the strength of the total laminate when calculating the thickness of the structural
portion. Structural laminates must have the thickness and glass reinforcement scheme to provide the design strength, which depends on
the number of plies and the type of reinforcing in each ply. Structural wall thickness in structures like FRP bleach towers may exceed 50
mm (2 in.).

Figure 1 illustrates typical laminate designs for FRP equipment. The structural wall is either hand lay-up (HLU) (also “contact molded”)
or filament wound (FW) construction. HLU laminates can be made on molds of almost any shape. The corrosion liner always is HLU
construction, with the veil-reinforced inner surface constructed first, right on the mold with a release film of Mylar, wax or Polyvinyl
alcohol. FW construction is amenable to pieces made by winding the glass threads on a rotating cylinder.

Tanks and vessels that are filament wound are referred to as having “hoop wound roving”, with rovings wound at angles typically
between 80 - 88 degrees. Unidirectional reinforcement, axially oriented glass, is interspersed between 88-degree hoop windings to
create what is called “0-90” filament wound structural laminates. These 0-90 structural laminates are used most often to meet the
strength requirements of ASME RTP-1.

Figure 1. Cutaways of regular hand lay-up (HLU) (left) and filament-wound (FW) (right) FRP laminates. Reinforcing in HLU
laminates is veil, chopped strand mat (CSM) or woven roving (WR). Reinforcing in FW laminates is WR and continuous
roving (thread). Typical resin content profiles are shown.

NOTE 1: ASME RTP-1 uses Inner Surface, Interior Layers and Structural Layers (including Outer Surface), where the Inner Surface and Interior Layers are referred to as
the Corrosion Barrier, rather than the Corrosion Liner, which is a term widely used in pulp and paper mills, and hence in this document.
Thickness of a regular corrosion barrier (liner) typically is about 2.5mm (0.1in). The 0.25 – 0.5mm, inner surface is reinforced with a
veil of glass, carbon or synthetic fiber – e.g., Nexus™ polyester fabric. The multi-ply, interior layers typically have at least two plies
reinforced with fiberglass strand mat known as “chopped strand mat” (CSM). CSM comes in both 3/4 and 1-1/2 oz/sq ft. unit weights.
2
(Metric weight equiv. for CSM are 300 and 450 g/m )

For especially severe service (e.g., D-stage bleaching) the corrosion liner thickness should be increased, often up to 6 mm (0.24 in), by
adding more veil and/or mat reinforced layers. A “double thick” liner can have 2 veil layers and 4 CSM layers – in V/2CSM -V/2CSM
or 2V/4CSM sequence, at the designer’s discretion. An outer surface, i.e., 25 mil resin coat; one veil, and/or one or two CSM, applies for
internal FRP components such as baffles, dip pipes, structural members, trays in scrubbers, etc.

Final thickness and glass content of each layer depend significantly on the type of reinforcement. As stated above, reinforcement types
include veils; CSM of various “weights”; fabric or “woven roving”, and continuous threads or “filaments.” Chopped strand or chopper
gun layers are produced by feeding glass threads through a “chopper gun”, which propels a controlled combination of chopped glass
and catalyzed resin to the laminate surface. (Deposited material usually is rolled to eliminate entrained air.)

High glass content, aligned fiber orientation and continuous threads make filament-wound laminates generally stronger than hand lay-
up laminates of the same thickness. The angle of helical winding determines axial and hoop strengths of the component − a 55º
winding angle (wrt. the axis) gives an optimal combination of axial and hoop strength in structural cylinders and in pipe.

Epoxy vinyl ester resins generally are more chemical-resistant than polyesters, especially to oxidizing, acidic bleaching
environments. The curing system usually is chosen by the fabricator and affects the resin performance. These easy-to-fabricate
resins are available in fire-retardant versions, which may have lower chemical resistance than the same resin without fire-
retardant additives.

Resins used to form the matrix for reinforcing fibers in the FRP composite structure are organic thermosetting compounds that cure
hard by catalyzed chemical reaction, and do not soften when heated. Epoxy and epoxy vinyl-ester resins, including novolac-
containing versions, are most widely used; furans and polyester resins also are used. Polyesters and epoxy vinyl esters are common
in FRP process equipment in pulp and paper mills. Epoxy resins are used in mass-produced components like pipe, valves, etc. Furan
resins have excellent resistance to many organic solvents. Resin selection typically is based both on the resin properties and on
published chemical resistance tables.

Resins

Dual laminate equipment, which uses extruded, thermoplastic sheet for the corrosion liner, may be an economic alternative for severe
service. PVC, CPVC, PP and fluoro-polymers including PTFE, PVDF, ECTFE and FEP, are used. The liner is formed and
constructed (joints are welded) on the mold before the FRP structural laminate is fabricated around it. The plastic liner is either
chemically bonded or physically “locked” to the structural FRP laminate by virtue of an integral, glass-cloth backing that is fused
into the plastic sheet. Specialized joining methods are used to assemble dual-laminate component pieces into a completed structure.

Dual laminate construction

While this document mostly discusses glass-fiber reinforcing, other fibrous materials also are used. Polyester fabric is one example,
mostly used as veil fabric in the inner surface and also as fiber mat to reinforce cured-in-place pipe Carbon fibers have
excellent chemical resistance, high strength-to-weight ratio and are conductive. liners. --`,,,,`,,``,``,``,,`,`,``,````-`-
`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Joints

An important aspect of FRP equipment reliability is how well the joints are made, e.g., head or shell joints, nozzle joints, baffles, etc.
Joints are mostly made by fitting up the pieces; filling resulting gaps – which must have strict size limits – with a resin-rich paste; then
wrapping the joint with an appropriate, “secondary” laminate/lay-up. Dual-laminate equipment has welded seams in the plastic liner and
secondary lay-ups on the non-process side only.
Thickness, width and design of secondary laminates are prescribed by the designer, as are details for protecting cut edges of joined
pieces and for optimizing the durability of the joints and lay-ups. Note: Because they are made in reverse order and the veil layer is
exposed to the air, secondary lay-ups are less chemically resistant than similar primary laminates (those made on the mold).

Inspection philosophy

The key to durability of FRP components is ensuring the integrity of the structural wall. The primary risk of failure is from chemical
attack of the structural wall laminate by process environment, which clearly must diffuse through or otherwise penetrate the corrosion
liner. This is why inspection and repair of FRP must focus on monitoring the condition and maintaining the serviceability of the
corrosion liner.

The corrosion liner is sacrificial and does not have to remain completely unaffected over time, provided it adequately protects
the structural laminate for the expected service life.

In addition to potential chemical attack, the integrity of the structural wall can also be compromised by:
Excessive service temperatures, which can cause general laminate degradation or thermal shock
Cracking from mechanical or service abuse (e.g. over-pressurization, impact, poor support, water hammer, etc.)
Stress cracking from acids (particularly hydrochloric and sulfuric acids) affecting some types of glass fiber. (This damage mechanism
has been found in chlorine dioxide service.)
Ultra-violet (UV) degradation of the resin if preventive measures are omitted.
Micro-or macro delaminations resulting from diffusion through the corrosion liner of highly mobile molecules like water, hydrochloric
acid and some organic solvents.

If the process environment, even when not aggressive, reaches the structural laminate, careful evaluation of the equipment’s fitness-for-
service establishes the urgency, scope and type of repairs. From a practical perspective, its higher resin content and the clean separation
between the reinforcing materials in each ply makes a HLU structural wall less susceptible to chemical attack than a wall made by
filament-winding. Continuous and contiguous strands of glass in FW construction also allow faster wicking than the HLU
construction.

In FRP piping, in addition to the above considerations, the corrosion liner may experience accelerated attack at flow-impinged surfaces
and in turbulence zones; mechanically-induced cracks or leaks at flanges, elbows, fittings, supports, etc., as well as external damage from
rubbing or vibration. As discussed further below, infrared thermography (IRT) and systematic thickness monitoring (e.g., with
removable coupons, RT or UT) are practical condition monitoring procedures.

Inspection frequencies

Per good engineering practice, the frequency of inspection of FRP equipment should be related to risks associated with failure/loss of
containment of the component. Higher risks naturally are associated with FRP equipment that:
Is located close to personnel or critical equipment.
Is essential to production, so that failure would cause substantial economic loss.
Contains hazardous or combustible materials that if released would threaten personnel or plant safety.

3. Contains chemicals known to degrade the FRP laminate at a significant rate.

FRP equipment containing solutions that are particularly corrosive or otherwise harmful enough (e.g., hot strong acids, organic
chemicals or oxidizing chemicals) to warrant detailed inspection of the corrosion liner and the secondary laminates at joints and nozzles
should be internally inspected no less than every two years. Inspection frequency may be stipulated by jurisdictional regulations, such
as for Process Safety Management (PSM) processes.

In addition to considering chemical aggressiveness of the contents, FRP equipment with any of the following

Operating temperatures exceed 80°C (175°F). [Lower limits apply to some resins.]
The equipment has known defects or damage, or was repaired in the previous two years or at the last inspection.
The equipment is new* or service conditions differ significantly from those governing the initial design. [* New equipment normally is
inspected after one year as a condition of standard commercial warranties.]
 Once the equipment’s condition and track-record in a particular service are determined, the interval between detailed internal inspections
should be revised accordingly, as long as service conditions remain unchanged. The condition of the FRP also may justify more frequent
inspections, especially as the equipment ages or if the service conditions become more severe. FRP equipment with benign contents still
should be inspected at least once every three years, with permissible extension of the inspection interval to five years if the damage rate
is very slow.

It is basic good practice to do formal, external, walk-down inspections at least once a year (see B.I below).

When it is time for an inspection

As with most process equipment that is in continuous service except during outages, there are four essential stages of a fully effective
inspection:
A. Inspection Preparation
B. External Inspection (three types)
C. Internal Inspection
D. Documentation These are described in more detail below.

A. Inspection preparation

Before FRP equipment is inspected, it is crucial for the inspector to be familiar with the equipment and to be qualified by
experience to do the inspection. Good eyesight is essential.

The inspector must review the following before starting the inspection:
Vessel drawings, service history and maintenance records, especially the most recent repairs (repairs should be accurately documented as
standard procedure)
Previous inspection records; inspection and quality verification reports for a new vessel
Which locations are most susceptible to time-based damage mechanisms – i.e., where to look first
Vessel cleaning and safe-entry procedures

Equipment cleaning must be carefully thought out. Safety and ease of inspection are crucial, but important evidence should not be
erased. Staining and deposits from leaks, fractured or delaminated material, “butter” and char from oxidizing attack and wear patterns
are important inspection clues. Caution should be exercised in cleaning to avoid damaging the surface and also not to remove deposits
that protect the surface.

B. External inspections

Three types of complementary external inspections are recommended:

I. In-service, External Walk-down Inspection

After reviewing the FRP equipment information, the next step is to carefully inspect the exterior while it is in service. This involves
looking at as much of the external surface as possible for indications of damage of any type. The main purpose is to identify where
subsequent internal inspection efforts should be focused.

Typical symptoms or clues that should be looked for include:

Cracks of any kind, especially at joints, nozzles, hold-downs and pipe supports
Leaks or wetness, especially around nozzles and around the base of the tanks
Discolored spots or areas
Physical damage from impact (gouges and starburst cracks), bulges, dents, etc.
Fiber exposure and other signs of external UV attack

In-service IRT inspection of FRP equipment identifies areas that are slightly warmer or cooler than the surrounding area. The
IRT equipment should produce a scanned image of the object, using long wave IR radiation to detect temperature variations as
low as 0.1°C (0.18°F). With warm contents, a warm surface could indicate thinner laminate or permeation by the process
liquid into the structural laminate. Cooler external surfaces could be due to dry voids, deposit build-up, or delamination air
gaps/blisters. (Converse interpretations apply for cool contents.) In-service IRT is good practice for FRP bleach towers and
pre-retention tubes (especially un-insulated equipment); chlorine dioxide and sodium chlorate storage tanks; stacks and large
diameter process piping.
 Insulation should be inspected. Deteriorated or damaged insulation often indicates existing or pending problems. Operators or
maintenance personnel involved with the equipment can advise regarding recent changes in the equipment’s appearance or
operation, which also should also be considered in devising the internal inspection plan.

• Vibrating or flexing parts of the tank or attached piping, and other indications of dynamically loaded zones.

Deteriorated foundations or supports and signs of uneven support.

II. In-service, External Infra-red Thermography (IRT) Inspection

III. Out-of-Service, External Walk-down and Inspection

Detailed external inspection of the FRP equipment when it is out of service and empty is as important as external, in-service inspection
for finding the same damage symptoms to focus internal inspection. Some flaws and problems are more visible in cool, empty
equipment, especially if the FRP is translucent.

Radiographic Inspection (RT)

In-service RT of FRP pipe can reveal wall thinning of pipe up to 0.75m (30 in) diameter. RT procedures require specialized equipment
and should be pre-qualified using appropriate test standards. (All NDT should be qualified.) Specialized imaging equipment is used,
especially to compensate for substantial pipe vibration.

Findings from all three external inspections should be used to define the scope and urgency of the next internal inspection. In
particular, suspicious external indications must be adequately investigated. This in turn defines what access is needed to inspect
suspicious areas or features.

C. Internal inspection

To be adequately prepared, before entering FRP equipment the inspector should:

Know the laminate design, especially construction of the corrosion liner (cutouts are excellent reference pieces)
Ensure the equipment is safe to enter. FRP surfaces should be dry and deposit-free for valid inspection.
Have a plan to investigate suspicious locations indicated by external, visual and other inspections and to act on findings,
recommendations and repairs from the previous inspection.
Recognize that the condition of the corrosion liner is the critical issue and minimize inspection-related damage accordingly.

Inspection equipment

The following tools and equipment must be in hand for the inspection:
Portable light - fluorescent lamps are especially good for examining glossy surfaces.
Paint scraper or similar probing tool; light hammer or other sounding tool.
Inspection aids: a mirror to look inside nozzles, around corners, magnifying lens, etc.
“Precision” excavating tool such as a divot tester or a router bit on a drill to determine the depth of attack or cracks in the laminate (see
Determining the Depth of Cracks or Deterioration below).
Camera, scale, ruler, caliper, pit gauge, etc., appropriate to the equipment being inspected.
Can of white, fast-drying spray paint (acetone solvent helps), to test for fine cracks in the corrosion liner as described below.
Barcol testing

Barcol indentation hardness testing can help find where the resin is softened. Barcol testing must be done with a calibrated
instrument on resin surfaces free of visible fibers, residues and deposits, “butter” from oxidative attack, etc. Barcol testing mainly is
done to determine how well the accessible surfaces of new FRP laminates are cured.

Barcol testing on used FRP is a controversial subject and the purpose and meaning of Barcol hardness readings must be understood
ahead of time because many factors affect them, including the original laminate hardness; presence of glass or polyester reinforcing
material at the surface, and solvent or other chemically-induced attack of the laminate.

Cracks may be starbursts (from impact), crazing or mud-cracks (from chemical attack or thermal affects), or structural cracks especially
at buckles, knuckles, corners and attachments. Document the size and extent of cracks. A way to enhance tight cracks is to dry the
surface, then spray a light coat of fast-drying, white, spray paint onto a test area. Fine cracks normally show up as wet lines in the paint.
Regular solvent-based penetrant testing (PT) is not useful on FRP because the solvent tends to soften the laminate and interfere with the
test. As with any diligent inspection, damage features that are detected should be characterized and reported as to their:

The primary inspection objective is to find cracks, pores and other attack or failure of the corrosion liner. This could include
softening; fiber prominence (also known as “leaching”), “buttering” of the surface from attack by chlorine dioxide, blisters, etc.
Damage to the laminate must be characterized as to its severity, extent, distribution, etc. The significance of any cracks and
damage depends on the extent to which the process solution can go into or beyond the corrosion liner and into the structural
wall. Shallow cracks in the corrosion liner can be tolerated in some cases, especially if they are very shallow and propagate
very slowly.

Oblique lighting reveals blisters, bulges, delaminations and texture variations in the surface. These should be closely
examined and sounded by tapping the surface with a light hammer without causing any surface damage.

Surfaces should be examined with direct and oblique illumination, looking for changes from the original, hard, glossy and
smooth surface. Color changes, stains, wetness and roughness all should be noted and investigated. Liquid level lines should
be noted so the laminate condition in the wet and dry (vapor) zones can be characterized. Areas around agitators, fittings,
changes in radius or shape, baffles, secondary overlays and nozzles should be especially well inspected for signs of wear or
erosion, cracks and chemical attack.

What to look at and what to look for

Barcol testing of surfaces damaged by acidic oxidative attack by chlorine dioxide (“buttering”) provides virtually no practical
value unless the butter is completely removed. After removing the softened resin, Barcol test results arguably provide little of
practical value, especially compared to determining how deep the oxidative attack progresses into the laminate, as discussed
further below in --`,,,,`,,``,``,``,,`,`,``,````-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---Determining depth of cracks or deterioration.

Location, distribution and number

Nature (cracks, blisters, etc.)
Size (maximum and average usually are sufficient)
Affected depth or other damage of the corrosion barrier thickness.
Because laminate degradation and damage can often be traced back to quality non-conformance in fabrication, it is good practice
during the inspection to verify the overall quality of the laminate, ideally compared to the fabrication specifications and standards.
Deviations in quality can be sources of problems with the laminate and joints.

Once the laminate damage is identified, preliminary investigation of its causes can immediately identify additional focal points for
inspection and possible mitigation measures. For example, cracks found by the inspections may indicate undesirable stress conditions
that should be addressed.

Determining depth of cracks or deterioration

As stated earlier, because integrity of the corrosion liner is the key to the durability of FRP equipment in corrosion service, depths of
cracks, blistering, buttering or other attack of the corrosion barrier must be investigated. This is done by carefully probing the
progress of the damage through the corrosion liner (thermoplastic sheet in dual-laminate equipment), using controlled scraping,
grinding or drilling.

Careful divot investigation with a low-angle router bit or drill-bit can reveal how much of the corrosion liner is damaged or left. A
clean, conical divot reveals the reinforcing layers and allows the depth of the damage to be inferred. Figure 2 illustrates divot
testing principles - the “divot” or shallow valley is examined at low magnification to find out how much of the corrosion liner still
exists or how deep the damage has progressed.

Delamination or layer separation within the laminate normally manifests as blistering or surface bulging. Disbonding of secondary
overlays is another type of delamination. Delaminations often arise at unwrapped edges and emanate from cracks and other physical
damage in the corrosion liner. Thermal cycling or overheat often cause blisters in the corrosion liner. Delamination can also arise from
inadequate bonding between layers in manufacture.
 Figure 2.
Illustration of how Divot test cone excavation reveals each glass
layer in the laminate structure. (Acknowledgement – T. Bishop,
Brer Technical, Inc.)

Large blisters are detected by sounding and/or with oblique lighting. Delamination of secondary lay-ups and overlays, especially
the edges, should be checked for by sounding and by prying with a paint-scraper or knife.

Blisters and delaminations that are not cracked and do not grow over time generally are not a problem, even if they contain permeated
water. Blisters and delaminations that continue to grow or are large enough to make cracking of the corrosion liner likely, should be
investigated to determine which laminate interface is delaminating. Cracked blisters make it simple to determine which interface is
delaminated by examining the thickness of the blister.
 Ultrasonic thickness meters can be useful in determining the depth and size of delaminations, as well as in measuring full
laminate thickness. As with all NDT methods, proper calibration, experienced technicians and qualified techniques are essential
for meaningful, accurate results.

NOTE 2: Magnetic thickness testing per ASTM D-4166 relatively reliably measures FRP thickness up to about 50mm when both sides of the laminate are accessible.

Spark testing

Inspection of any equipment is truly complete only when the inspection methods used and the findings and results of the inspection are
fully recorded and the report is appropriately archived. Strategically, the formal inspection report should contain up-to-date information
on the inspection frequency, scope and methods; who did the last inspection; inspection results, repair documentation, and other pertinent
information for that equipment. Reports should be well organized and easily accessible to mill personnel responsible for:

Spark testing checks for localized failure or “holidays” in new FRP corrosion liners and in non-conductive linings

on conductive substrates. damage the lining.

D. Reports and documentation

Strategic purpose

Determining rates of time-based damage and fitness-for-service of the equipment.

Deciding when the next internal inspection should be done and its scope.
Investigating the effectiveness of previous repairs; designing types, extent and timing of repairs.
Devising in-service inspections on critical equipment.

Inspection reports

The Inspection Reports must provide in a consistent format up-to-date descriptions of the equipment’s condition. Inspection Reports
for FRP equipment should contain as much of the following information as possible:

Equipment and Process Data

Year of manufacture; manufacturer/fabricator
Drawings or other reference numbers
Laminate description, especially corrosion liner thickness and design; resins. (Sample cut-outs from original fabrication should be kept
on file.)
Design process conditions: pH, temperature, pressure, etc.

Inspection details
Damage mechanisms inspected for.
Inspection methods (visual, divot test, AET, IRT, etc.), with written procedures.
Names of inspector and mill overseer
Inspection scope
Cleaning/surface preparation procedures

Inspection findings
Observations, measurements, test results, etc. Use nomenclature of ASTM D2563 (see Standards below)
Photographs or drawings to supplement verbal descriptions
Supplementary inspections and testing done during this inspection, i.e. beyond initial scope
 Follow-up actions and comments
Immediate repairs
Recommendations for the next inspection’s scope and timing, based on damage findings.
Sign-off acceptance by mill overseer of results, quality checks and recommendations from this inspection

Coring

Laminates in equipment that cannot be entered can be investigated by carefully coring the laminate with a hole-saw. Cores provide
complete information about the actual laminate beyond what is in the drawings (if they exist). Expert analysis can determine the glass
content and reinforcement sequence of any part of the laminate.

Special laboratory staining techniques can show how deep chemicals have progressed into the laminate and the degree of resin
cure. (More information is in Bergman’s paper and book in References.)

Damage assessment

The condition of the corrosion liner defines when repairs should be done. Depending greatly on depth of cracks, blisters, “buttering”
attack or other damage to the corrosion liner, and other practical considerations, including repair resources and time available, it may be
sensible to monitor the damage and not immediately initiate repairs. Condition assessment of FRP requires specialized expertise.
Consultation with FRP specialists can help avoid premature or unnecessary repairs and help assure good repair procedures are employed
and are properly executed.

Acoustic emission testing (AET)

Acoustic emission testing complements other non-destructive inspection methods. Flaws are detected by “listening” to high frequency
acoustic signals emitted when FRP equipment is “stimulated" by controlled loading. AET is used for global inspection (using many
sensors) or for detailed localized inspection.

The equipment must be able to be suitably “loaded” or stimulated to meet AET procedural requirements. For example, AET requires
loading (or filling) to at least 10% above the highest pressure (or fill-level) experienced in a prescribed time (usually several weeks)
before the test. These requirements differ for different materials. Locations of emission sources are indicated by triangulation from the
sensor array. The number, strength, amplitude and sound frequency of acoustic emissions are analyzed by computer to define the nature
of the emitting flaw (e.g., fiber breakage, disbonding, etc.) to aid in assessing the overall integrity of the tested structure, using standard
criteria established over decades of testing.

AET is widely used to test new FRP tanks and also is useful for inspecting in-service equipment. AET helps in assessing fitness-for-
service of used FRP equipment and, as with external IRT, it indicates where internal inspection should be focused. However, AET does
not characterize the condition of the corrosion liner.

AET is useful for inspecting FRP equipment with no internal access, including piping systems. Periodic AET can semi-quantitatively
trend flaw growth, thereby helping monitor the equipment’s fitness for service. AET is done by specialized inspection companies
experienced in inspecting FRP structures.

AET contractors must have working knowledge of test methods and recommended practices published by:
• American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) defines test procedures (Section V, Articles 11 and 12) and evaluation criteria
(Section X) for FRP pressure vessels in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.

•
composite pipes, tanks and vessels. (See References/Standards)
References

A. Books and Papers

Corrosion of Plastics and Rubbers in Process Equipment - Experiences from the Pulp and Paper Industry,
G. Bergman, TAPPI PRESS, 1995.
Corrosion-Resistant Plastic Composites in Chemical Plant Design, J. H. Mallinson, Marcel Dekker Inc., 1988.
Standard specification for contact-molded reinforced thermosetting plastic (RTP) laminates for corrosion resistant equipment. Standard
test method for tensile properties of plastics Standard test methods for flexural properties of unreinforced and reinforced plastics D 2310
Standard classification for machine-made reinforced thermosetting resin pipe (RTRP). D 2563 Standard recommended practice for
classifying visual defects in glass-reinforced plastic laminate parts. D 2583 Standard test method for indentation hardness of rigid
plastics by means of a Barcol Impressor. D 2584 Test method for ignition loss of cured reinforced resins. D 2996 Standard specification
for filament-wound reinforced thermosetting resin pipe. D 3299 Standard specification for filament-wound glass-fiber reinforced
thermoset resin chemical resistant tanks. D 4097 Standard specification for contact molded glass-fiber reinforced thermoset resin
chemical resistant tanks. E 569 Recommended practice for acoustic emission monitoring of structures during controlled stimulation. E
1067 Standard practice for acoustic emission examination of fiberglass reinforced plastic resin (FRP)
The following ASTM and NBIC standards are recommended references related to inspection of FRP equipment:

Guide to the Use of Epoxy, Furan, Polyester and Vinyl Ester Equipment - laminate properties and common resins successfully
used in pulping applications, G. Arthur, Proc. TAPPI Eng. Conf., TAPPI Press, 1989.

Safety and the Environment versus FRP Process Equipment Standards - types and causes of equipment failure. G. Arthur, Proc.
TAPPI Eng. Conf., TAPPI Press, 1991.
D.C. and Botten S.F. Proc. 1994 TAPPI Engineering Conference, TAPPI PRESS, Atlanta
Use of acoustic emission inspection to assess the condition of damaged FRP bleach towers, Anderson T.F., Bennett
The corrosion approach to create confidence and to obtain reliability and cost-effectiveness of FRP structures, G. Bergman,
Corrosion & Metals Research Institute (KIMAB), Stockholm, Sweden 2006.
Practical Guide to Field Inspection of FRP Equipment and Piping, MTI Proj. 129-99. Avail. at www.mti-global.org
Inspection Guide for Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Equipment, Reichhold, 1999. Available at www.reichhold.com

., Fiberglass Pipe Institute, New York, NY, 1989.

tanks/vessels. E 1118 Standard practice for acoustic emission examination of reinforced thermosetting resin pipe (RTRP)
National Board Inspection Code, Appendix 9: Repair, Alteration and Inspection of Fiber-Reinforced Thermosetting Plastic Pressure
Equipment

Keywords

Glass fibers, Plastics, Inspection, Degradation, Damage, Corrosion

Additional information

Effective date of issue: January 2, 2007

Working Group Members: David Bennett, Corrosion Probe, Inc. (Chairman) Gary L. Arthur, An-Cor Industrial Plastics, Inc.
Gunnar Bergman, Corrosion and Metals Research Institute (KIMAB), Stockholm Michael Lykins, Smurfit-Stone Container
Corp.
R. A. (Randy) Nixon, Corrosion Probe, Inc.
W.B.A. (Sandy) Sharp, Independent Consultant Christian Thompson, Pulp and Paper Research Institute
of Canada
g