Volume 49 Issue 9
Oct.  2023
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
XIN T D,CUI C Y,LIU Y,et al. Non-probabilistic reliability analysis method for propellent tank with crack defect[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,2023,49(9):2330-2336 (in Chinese) doi: 10.13700/j.bh.1001-5965.2021.0651
Citation: XIN T D,CUI C Y,LIU Y,et al. Non-probabilistic reliability analysis method for propellent tank with crack defect[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,2023,49(9):2330-2336 (in Chinese) doi: 10.13700/j.bh.1001-5965.2021.0651

Non-probabilistic reliability analysis method for propellent tank with crack defect

doi: 10.13700/j.bh.1001-5965.2021.0651
Funds:  Launch Comprehensive Safety Assessment and Test Verification Technology(ZRHT2020T06)
More Information
  • Corresponding author: E-mail:xtd0701@126.com
  • Received Date: 31 Oct 2021
  • Accepted Date: 27 Jan 2022
  • Publish Date: 08 Mar 2022
  • During the service period of the propellant tank, the accurate analysis of its crack defects and reliable state with crack defects can not only guarantee the safety of the launch site, but also effectively avoid unnecessary panic, providing a reference for emergency plan formulation. Based on interval theory and failure assessment diagram theory, a non-probabilistic failure assessment diagram (NFAD) is proposed. The reliability analysis of the crack defect of propellant tanks can be effectively conducted when it is difficult to accurately obtain the failure evaluation point and curve in engineering practice. The proposed method is verified with the example parameters. The results show that this method can analyze any state of tank crack defects without accurate failure assessment point and curve, fully considering the uncertainty in the analysis. The binary logic states of failure or reliability of the traditional failure assessment chart method are divided into three cases with he reliability index is equal to 0, the reliability index is greater than 0 and less than 1, and the reliability index is greater than or equal to 1, represent the failure state, reliability degree and safety margin respectively.

     

  • loading
  • [1]
    BANNISTER A C, RUIZ OCEJO J, GUTIERREZ-SOLANA F. Implications of the yield stress/tensile stress ratio to the SINTAP failure assessment diagrams for homogeneous materials[J]. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2000, 67(6): 547-562. doi: 10.1016/S0013-7944(00)00073-4
    [2]
    British Energy Generation Limited. Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects : R6 Revision 4[S]. Gloucester: British Energy Generation Limited, 2001.
    [3]
    British Standards Institute. Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures: BS 7910[S]. London: BSI Standards Limited, 2013.
    [4]
    American Petroleum Institute and American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Fitness-for-service: API 579-1/ASME FFS-1[S]. Washington, D.C. : API Publishing Services, 2016.
    [5]
    国家市场监督管理总局, 国家标准化管理委员会. 在用含缺陷压力容器安全评定: GB/T 19624—2019[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2019.

    State Administration for Market Regulation, Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China. Safety assessment of in-service pressure vessels containing defects: GB/T 19624—2019[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2019 (in Chinese).
    [6]
    WEI S J, TOMAC I. Numerical evaluation of failure assessment diagram (FAD) for hydraulic fracture propagation in sandstone[J]. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2022, 263: 108311. doi: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2022.108311
    [7]
    RADU D, SEDMAK A, BĂNCILĂ R. Determining the crack acceptability in the welded joints of a wind loaded cylindrical steel shell structure[J]. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2018, 91: 341-353. doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.04.032
    [8]
    AINSWORTH R A, GINTALAS M, SAHU M K, et al. Application of failure assessment diagram methods to cracked straight pipes and elbows[J]. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2016, 148: 26-35. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.10.005
    [9]
    KINGKLANG S, DAODON W, UTHAISANGSUK V. Failure investigation of liquefied petroleum gas cylinder using FAD and XFEM[J]. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2019, 171: 69-78. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2019.02.007
    [10]
    ANDREWS R, COSHAM A, MACDONALD K. Application of BS 7910 to high pressure pipelines[J]. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2018, 168: 148-155. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2018.09.008
    [11]
    CHOCAT R, BEAUCAIRE P, DEBEUGNY L, et al. Damage tolerance reliability analysis combining Kriging regression and support vector machine classification[J]. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2019, 216: 106514. doi: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.106514
    [12]
    PLUVINAGE G, BOULEDROUA O, HADJ MELIANI M, et al. Corrosion defect analysis using domain failure assessment diagram[J]. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2018, 165: 126-134. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2018.06.005
    [13]
    XIAO Q D, LIU Y H, DAI Y W. Developments of strain-based failure assessment diagram applications: Measuring reference strain by displacement and a modified assessment method[J]. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 2018, 140: 27-36. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.02.045
    [14]
    ROTH S, KUNA M. Prediction of size-dependent fatigue failure modes by means of a cyclic cohesive zone model[J]. International Journal of Fatigue, 2017, 100: 58-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.01.044
    [15]
    RADU V, ROTH M. Probabilistic fracture mechanics applied for DHC assessment in the cool-down transients for CANDU pressure tubes[J]. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2012, 253: 211-218. doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2012.08.036
    [16]
    BOULEDROUA O, ZELMATI D, HASSANI M. Inspections, statistical and reliability assessment study of corroded pipeline[J]. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2019, 100: 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.02.012
    [17]
    JIN H J, WU S J. Effect of plasticity constraint on structural integrity assessment of pressure vessel welds[J]. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2015, 134: 72-81. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2015.09.001
    [18]
    BERGANT M A, YAWNY A A, PEREZ IPIÑA J E. A comparison of failure assessment diagram options for Inconel 690 and Incoloy 800 nuclear steam generators tubes[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2020, 140: 107310. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107310
    [19]
    FUENTES J D, CICERO S, IBÁÑEZ-GUTIÉRREZ F T, et al. On the use of British standard 7910 option1 failure assessment diagram to non-metallic materials[J]. Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, 2018, 41(1): 146-158.
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(6)  / Tables(3)

    Article Metrics

    Article views(99) PDF downloads(12) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return