Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Hot forming repair 4

Status
Not open for further replies.

JamesKerr

Industrial
Nov 7, 2016
25
0
0
CA
Good morning,

I'm trying to write a procedure for deformation (dent) repairs that will be acceptable to the NBIC and Section VIII Div 1. My plan is to gather as much information as possible and present in to our Authorized Inspector for review so that in future cases we won't be restarting an investigation into the viability of heating and forming vessel walls to correct them.

I understand that every case is different, This is the parameters I'm restricting this procedure to;

The dents are unacceptable, API-579, Sec VIII div 1, NBIC and/or client.
The dents are not coming out without being heated.
The material is carbon steel under .25% carbon (validated by mill test or chemical analysis).
The thickness is .5" to 1" thick.
The dent is in a pressure boundary.
No impact tests are required.
We have not exceeded 5% fiber elongation.
I want to avoid cutting out and patching a pressure retaining item.

For P1 materials I feel like there is some Code guidance using UCS-79 and UCS-85,
1) Heat material to forging temp.
2) Use hydraulic jack to remove the dent.
3) Let the material air cool
4a) We hydro and are done.

For material other than P1 (but still carbon steel). A lot less Code guidance.
1) Heat material to forging temp.
2) Use hydraulic jack to remove the dent.
3) Let the material air cool.
4) Heat a test specimen up to forging temp, let it air cool.
5) Heat-treat test specimen per UCS-56.
6) Send test specimen to be mechanically tested as per the criteria of sec IIA.
5) Assuming the test specimen is accepted we heat treat to UCS-56 hydro and are done.

One things I'm stuck on.
A) UCS-79(b) Carbon and low alloy steel plates shall not be formed cold by blows.
- The process that created the dent can be considered cold forming. Everything stops here the only acceptable option is a patch.

The questions are;
A1) Is this acceptable to meet the Codes mentioned?
A2) Forget the Codes, does this make sense from a metallurgy and engineering stand point?



 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

r6155

These are the only pictures I currently have. Dent is about .625 deep and 12" in diameter. The dent is unacceptable to the client. For this particular client using the acceptance criteria of the NBIC isn't an option. The tank must look like new.

20211122_093949_ct39zz.jpg
20211122_093943_dez7oh.jpg
 
Sorry, but I agree with your client.
Option 1) cut and install a manhole.
Option 2) Replace entire shell section.

Regards


 
If you inspect the surface and find no cracks then I don't see any issues with respect to static structural integrity.
If the vessel experiences cyclic service then fatigue may be an issue. PD 5500 Appendix C contains stress calc for peaking which may be helpful.
Hydrotesting the vessel to remove any residual stresses in the dent would be wise.

Issues with superficial appearance is a completely separate consideration.
 
We have little information. The photos do not show enough to comment. Why are there no good photos? This shows me that you guys have serious quality problems. I think the client is very angry.
If I were the client, I would not accept this poorly done job. I bought a new PV without repairs. This defect cannot occur with an experienced manufacturer.

Sorry again.

Regards
 
r6155,

Ask questions if you need more information.

These are the photo I have on hand. I don't have the vessel sitting beside my desk.

Yes, we have a serious problem that needs to be fixed.

The transport had a mechanical failure. The tractor trailer rolled over in the ditch.

We have a good relationship with our client, who understands that this is nobody's ones fault.

Comments stating we have no experience are not useful. You know nothing about what kind of manufacturing experience we have. Accidents happen everywhere.

The goal of this forum is to share experiences (s**t happens) and to try help each other out. If you have a reason from a Code, engineering, or metallurgy standpoint that this shouldn't be done please elaborate. If you want to insult the inner workings of my quality system please refrain from commenting.







 
Why didn't you mention this accident in the original post ?. I do not have the crystal ball, I am not a fortune teller.
It is unethical to send us incorrect information.
I wasted my time to help you !!

Good Luck

 
James,
You mentioned your plan was to write the procedures and then go to the AI for review - I'm not sure what your relationship is with your AI, but I'd suggest getting him involved ASAP and seeing if he has any resources that can help track down the info you need to make these determinations. Your AI, or an AI colleague of theirs, may have experience with a manufacturer performing similar repairs, or they may have guidance that will make a decision without doing all of this investigation (such as confirmation that it cannot be cold formed by blows for P1 which would not allow a hot formed repair).

Sorry about the luck with the damage. I'm sure replacement materials are only 20-50 weeks out right now with how the supply chain is rolling.
 
JamesKerr, going back to your OP:

I'd say your proposed repair procedures are pretty close, but per DriveMeNuts I'd add NDE such as MT/PT, perhaps before and after re-forming.

I'd also assume in most cases client approval would be needed before proceeding

I don't think UCS-79(b) is applicable, I'd not worry about it.

I'd guess with enough work you can get the dent out well enough to meet UG-80 rules, but the effects will not become invisible without Bondo :)

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top