0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

A Comparative Evaluation of Fatigue and Fracture Characteristics of Structural Components of Liquefied Natural Gas Carrier Insulation System

[+] Author and Article Information
Hyeon Su Kim

Graduate Student
Department of Naval Architecture
and Ocean Engineering,
Pusan National University,
Busan 709-635, Korea
e-mail: ssu3846@pusan.ac.kr

Min Sung Chun

Senior Engineer
Marine Research Institute,
Samsung Heavy Industries, Co., Ltd.,
Geoje 656-710, Korea
e-mail: minsung.chun@samsung.com

Jae Myung Lee

Professor
Mem. ASME
e-mail: jaemlee@pusan.ac.kr

Myung Hyun Kim

Professor
Mem. ASME
e-mail: kimm@pusan.ac.kr
Department of Naval Architecture
and Ocean Engineering,
Pusan National University,
Busan 709-635, Korea

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 26, 2012; final manuscript received July 18, 2012; published online March 18, 2013. Assoc. Editor: David L. Rudland.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 135(2), 021405 (Mar 18, 2013) (9 pages) Paper No: PVT-12-1009; doi: 10.1115/1.4007473 History: Received January 26, 2012; Revised July 18, 2012

This study examined the fatigue strength and fracture toughness of the structural components of membrane type liquefied natural gas carrier (LNGC) insulation systems, such as reinforced poly-urethane foam (R-PUF, insulation material) and 304 L stainless steel (STS 304 L, Primary barrier membrane), at both ambient and cryogenic temperatures. The fatigue strength of the LNGC insulation system was compared with that of low density R-PUF (130 kg/m3) and high density R-PUF (210 kg/m3). The fracture toughness of R-PUF and STS 304 L was investigated in terms of the density effect of R-PUF and the difference in the nickel composition of STS 304 L, STS 304 L (10.2%Ni) versus STS 304 L (9.4%Ni) at both ambient and cryogenic temperatures. In this study, the high density R-PUF (210 kg/m3) and STS 304 L (9.4%Ni) were proposed to improve the structural strength of the LNGC insulation system and reduce the cost. The fracture toughness was characterized in terms of the critical strain energy release rate (GIC) in the context of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). The geometries of the fracture toughness test used were the center-cracked tension (CCT) and double-edge-cracked tension (DECT) specimens according to ASTM STP381 standard.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Lee, H., Kim, J. W., and Hwang, C., 2004, “Dynamic Strength Analysis for Membrane Type LNG Containment System Due to Sloshing Impact Load,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Design and Operation of Gas Carriers. London, UK.
Lee, J. M., Paik, J. M., Kim, M. H., Yoon, J. W., Choe, I. H., Kim, W. S., and Noh, B. J., 2006, “Strength of Membrane Type LNG Cargo Containment System Under Sloshing Impact,” World Maritime Technology Conference, London, UK.
Lee, H. B., Park, B. J., Rhee, S. H., Bae, J. H., Lee, K. W., and Jeong, W. J., 2011, “Liquified Natural Gas Flow in the Insulation System Wall of a Cargo Containment System and Its Evaporation,”Appl. Therm. Eng., 31(14-15), p. 2605. [CrossRef]
Chun, M. S., Kim, M. H., Kim, W. S., Kim, S. H., and Lee, J. M., 2009, “Experimental Investigation on the Impact Behavior of Membrane-Type LNG Carrier Insulation System,”J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 22, pp. 901–907. [CrossRef]
Vanem, E., Antaõ, P., Østvik, I., and Del Castillo de Comas, F., 2008, “Analysing the Risk of LNG Carrier Operations,”Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 93, pp. 1328–1344. [CrossRef]
Kim, B. C., Yoon, S. H., and Lee, D. G., 2011, “Pressure Resistance of the Corrugated Stainless Steel Membranes of LNG Carriers,”J. Ocean Eng., 38, pp. 592–608. [CrossRef]
Zalar, M., Malenica, S., Mravak, Z., and Moirod, N., 2007, “Some Aspects of Direct Calculation Methods for the Assessment of LNG Tank Structure Under Sloshing Impact,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Liquefied Natural Gas, Barcelona, Spain.
Kim, M. H., Lee, S. M., Lee, J. M., Noh, B. J., and Kim, W. S., 2010, “Fatigue Strength Assessment of Mark-III Type LNG Cargo Containment System,”J. Ocean Eng., 37, pp.1243–1252. [CrossRef]
Srawley, J. E., and Brown, W. F., 1964, “Fracture Toughness Testing Methods, Fracture Toughness Testing and Its Applications,” ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 381, pp. 189–190.
Mclntyre, A., and Anderton, G. E., 1979, “Fracture Properties of a Rigid Polyurethane Foam over a Range of Densities,”Polymer, 20, pp. 247–253. [CrossRef]
Cotgreave, T., and Shortall, J. B., 1978, “The Fracture Toughness of Reinforced Polyurethane Foam,”J. Mater. Sci., 13, pp. 722–730. [CrossRef]
Fowlkes, C. W., 1974, “Fracture Toughness Tests of a Rigid Poly-Urethane Foam,”Int. J. Fract., 10, pp. 99–108. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic diagram of the GTT Mark-III type LNG cargo containment system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic diagram of the fatigue test specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Types of test specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Configuration of the specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Fabrication of the test specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Fatigue test machine (IST-8800, INSTRON)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Typical failure mode of the test specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Fatigue loading step

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Typical fatigue failure mode of low density foam

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Typical failure modes of high density foam

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Displacement range versus fatigue life (log–log scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

S–N curve based on the nominal stress approach (log–log scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Types of the test specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Fabrication of the notches (ASTM STP 381)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Fabricated specimens with aluminum jigs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Typical failure modes of the fracture test (R-PUF)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Typical failure modes of the fracture test (STS 304 L)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Applied stress versus allowable crack length curves of R-PUF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Applied stress versus the allowable crack length curves of STS 304 L

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In