Inspectioneering
Inspectioneering Journal

Advanced Buckling Analysis of a Reactor Tank Supported by Four Legs

By Michael Turnquist, Sr. Consulting Engineer at Quest Integrity Group. This article appears in the July/August 2017 issue of Inspectioneering Journal.
9 Likes

Introduction

The failure of a 15-foot diameter reactor tank supported by four legs was analyzed using advanced engineering assessment methodology. At the time of the incident, the cause of the disruption was unknown. However, the failure was believed to be caused by buckling of the support legs. Shortly after the reported failure, another tank of identical design was immediately taken out of service so that an investigation could be performed.

To determine the cause of the failure, an analysis was executed to determine the buckling capacity of the as-built tank design. Buckling is a complex phenomenon and requires the application of advanced finite element analysis (FEA) techniques. Several complexities were involved in simulating the event of buckling collapse, including precise modeling of geometric imperfections based on specific fabrication tolerances, elastic-plastic material behavior simulation, and the use of non-linear and explicit finite element solving techniques.

An independent design review found that the tanks had been constructed without a compression ring at the bottom cone floor-to-shell knuckle weld, which is a violation of API 6201. The results of the buckling analysis indicated that the failure was likely due to excessive compressive stress at the floor-to-shell knuckle weld. This article will outline the engineering and assessment methodologies applied during the analysis of this tank failure.

Background

The number one concern for operators in the oil and gas industry is avoiding equipment failures. This is true from both a safety standpoint, as well as an economic standpoint. Common causes of failure include, but are not limited to, improper operation, inadequate design, and unexpected loading conditions. No matter the consequence, if a failure occurs, it is vital for the operator to understand the cause so that lessons can be learned and future failures can be prevented.

Basic information for this tank is summarized in Table 1.

Basic Tank Information
Table 1. Basic Tank Information

This content is available to registered users and subscribers

Register today to unlock this article for free.

Create your free account and get access to:

  • Unlock one premium article of your choosing per month
  • Exclusive online content, videos, and downloads
  • Insightful and actionable webinars
GET STARTED
Interested in unlimited access? VIEW OUR SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS

Current subscribers and registered users can log in now.


Comments and Discussion

Posted by Michael Ugbo on September 11, 2017
Is this reactor design to API 620 or ASME section... Log in or register to read the rest of this comment.

Add a Comment

Please log in or register to participate in comments and discussions.


Inspectioneering Journal

Explore over 20 years of articles written by our team of subject matter experts.

Company Directory

Find relevant products, services, and technologies.

Training Solutions

Improve your skills in key mechanical integrity subjects.

Case Studies

Learn from the experience of others in the industry.

Integripedia

Inspectioneering's index of mechanical integrity topics – built by you.

Industry News

Stay up-to-date with the latest inspection and asset integrity management news.

Blog

Read short articles and insights authored by industry experts.

Expert Interviews

Inspectioneering's archive of interviews with industry subject matter experts.

Event Calendar

Find upcoming conferences, training sessions, online events, and more.

Downloads

Downloadable eBooks, Asset Intelligence Reports, checklists, white papers, and more.

Videos & Webinars

Watch educational and informative videos directly related to your profession.

Acronyms

Commonly used asset integrity management and inspection acronyms.