Advertisement

Proof Test Criteria for Thin Walled Pressure Vessels

  • R. W. Finger
Part of the Sagamore Army Materials Research Conference Proceedings book series (SAMC)

Abstract

Service failures of pressure vessels are generally a consequence of inherent part-through surface of sub-surface defects. The catastrophic pressure vessel failures of the mid 50’s and 60’s necessitated the development of a technology for the understanding and thereby eventual elimination of these failures. Fracture mechanics evolved as the technology base for the analysis of failures and for the development of methodologies for the prevention of these failure occurrences. Paramount in the prevention of service failures has been the development of fracture resistant materials and proof testing procedures. Reference [1] (“Fracture Control of Metallic Pressure Vessels”) defines the necessary procedures for determining proof testing parameters for pressure vessels in which the critical flaw depth at proof pressure is less than the wall thickness. The increased usage of fracture resistant materials has resulted in an increase in the critical flaw size at proof pressure. Presently a significant percentage of aerospace pressure vessels have critical flaw sizes at proof that are in excess of the wall thickness. For most aerospace pressure vessels fabricated from 2219 aluminum the failure made at proof pressure is leakage.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tiffany, C.F., “Fracture Control of Metallic Pressure Vessels. NASA Space Vehicle Design Criteria, Structures”, Boeing Company, Seattle, Wash. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contract Report No. NASA-SP-8040, May 1970. (N71–14130)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Masters, J.N., Haese, W.P. and Finger, R.W., “Investigation of Deep Flaws in Thin Walled Tanks”, Boeing Company, Seattle, Wash. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contract Report No. NASA-CR-72606, December 1969. (N70–16465)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Irwin, G.R., “Crack Extension Force for a Part-Through Crack in a Plate”, Trans. ASME, Ser. E, J. Appl. Mech., 29 (1962), 651–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Masters, J.N., Bixler, W.D. and Finger, R.W., “Fracture Characteristics of Structural Aerospace Alloys Containing Deep Surface Flaws”, Boeing Aerospace Company, Seattle, Wash. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contract Report No. NASA-CR-134587, December 1973. (N74–19542)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Masters, J.N., Engstrom, W.L. and Bixler, W.D., “Deep Flaws in Weldments of Aluminum and Titanium”, Boeing Aerospace Company, Seattle, Wash. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contract Report No. NSAS-CR-134649, April 1974. (N74–32932)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Finger, R.W., “Proof Test Criteria for Thin-Walled 2219 Aluminum Pressure Vessels”, Boeing Aerospace Corporation, Seattle, Wash. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contract Report No. NASA-CR-135036, August 1976.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. W. Finger
    • 1
  1. 1.Boeing Aerospace CompanySeattle WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations