CN103868985A - Defect quantified comprehensive safety judgment method for on-service pressure container - Google Patents

Defect quantified comprehensive safety judgment method for on-service pressure container Download PDF

Info

Publication number
CN103868985A
CN103868985A CN201410105913.XA CN201410105913A CN103868985A CN 103868985 A CN103868985 A CN 103868985A CN 201410105913 A CN201410105913 A CN 201410105913A CN 103868985 A CN103868985 A CN 103868985A
Authority
CN
China
Prior art keywords
pressure vessel
evaluation
overbar
comprehensive
centerdot
Prior art date
Application number
CN201410105913.XA
Other languages
Chinese (zh)
Other versions
CN103868985B (en
Inventor
柳军
张小洪
黄陈
何星
Original Assignee
西南石油大学
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by 西南石油大学 filed Critical 西南石油大学
Priority to CN201410105913.XA priority Critical patent/CN103868985B/en
Publication of CN103868985A publication Critical patent/CN103868985A/en
Application granted granted Critical
Publication of CN103868985B publication Critical patent/CN103868985B/en

Links

Abstract

The invention discloses a defect quantified comprehensive safety judgment method for an on-service pressure container. The method comprises the steps of detecting a defect of the on-service pressure container by a magnetic memory detection method, and quantifying the defect by a calculation formula; performing planar defect breakage evaluation and planar defect fatigue evaluation on the on-service pressure container according to a magnetic memory detection result; constructing a comprehensive judgment matrix by a fuzzy comprehensive judgment system, calculating a total damage rate according to the damage rate, caused by each ineffectiveness factor, on the pressure container and a weight of the influences on the safety of the pressure container, determining a relation of the influences, and making comprehensive safety judgment. The defect quantified comprehensive safety judgment method for the on-service pressure container is high in reliability and high in operability, and an evaluation result can objectively and really reflect actual situations of engineering.

Description

A kind of inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method

Technical field

The invention belongs to pressure vessel safety evaluation technology field, relate in particular to a kind of inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method.

Background technology

Pressure vessel is a kind of extraordinary bearing device with explosion danger, have the features such as high temperature, high pressure, inflammable, explosive, complex process, once blast or leak, consequence is extremely heavy, therefore, the safe reliability of pressure vessel is passed judgment on and is just seemed particularly important.Compared with additive method, detect and realize quantifying defects with magnetic memory, the comprehensive safety thus pressure vessel being carried out is again passed judgment on has salient feature: first magnetic memory detects as a kind of emerging nondestructiving detecting means, its detection is comprehensive, careful, the impact of whether not runed, easy and simple to handle, labour intensity is little, the result drawing is accurate, be applicable to Site Detection; Secondly adopt inservice pressure vessel Safety index system that its safety problem is analyzed and passed judgment on, make the location that judge passes judgment on inservice pressure vessel safety comprehensive rise to science judge by experience, be beneficial to the safety of reasonable tolerance or judge inservice pressure vessel, variation tendency that finally can dynamic monitoring inservice pressure vessel disaster, analyze and find the omen that lost efficacy and occur, especially the relevance between various disasters, with and cause secondary disaster.Therefore, the important means of pressure vessel safety reliability evaluation after the comprehensive safety judge based on magnetic memory detection quantifying defects will become with its salient feature, and there is the irreplaceable advantage of other evaluation methods.

In the safety evaluation process of inservice pressure vessel, the factor that affects its security performance is many-sided, some factor can realize quantification, and some factor can only qualitative analysis, between each factor, have again correlativity, and the principal element that affects inservice pressure vessel safety is defect, its testing process is very complicated, quantized result is not accurate again, and these situations bring very large difficulty and feel uncertain to its man-rate.The current inservice pressure vessel man-rate modes that adopt single angle evaluation, draw from theoretical side the conclusion that inservice pressure vessel whether can trouble free service, and can not synthesise various factor solve its safe coefficient problem more.Make a concrete analysis of as follows: the detection of defect, quantize inaccurate; The mode that adopts the evaluation of single angle, too relies on expertise or field data, can not consider all principal elements that affect inservice pressure vessel security, and the connecting each other of clearly each influence factor, is not inconsistent with actual conditions; Whether the result of evaluation just draws conclusion that can trouble free service theoretically, can not solve safe coefficient problem, and variation tendency that more can not dynamic monitoring disaster, to find in time disaster better, more accurately, accomplishes to prevent in advance.Above problem all can make safety assessment result undesirable, its result often: the notional result of assessment is also in security clearance, and in fact pressure vessel lost efficacy, can not use.

Summary of the invention

The object of the embodiment of the present invention is to provide a kind of inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method, be intended to solve inservice pressure vessel defects detection difficulty that existing evaluation method exists, testing result out of true, can not dynamic monitoring disaster the problem that do not conform to reality of variation tendency, Appraisal process complexity and assessment result.

The embodiment of the present invention is achieved in that a kind of inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method, and this inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method comprises:

Adopt magnetic memory detecting method, detect inservice pressure vessel planar disfigurement, realize the quantification of defect by computing formula;

Adopt the testing result of magnetic memory to carry out the fracture assessment of planar disfigurement, the fatigue assessment of planar disfigurement to inservice pressure vessel, and calculate the damage that inservice pressure vessel is caused; Draw the technical indicators such as the maximum pressure that inservice pressure vessel can bear, final crack length, final crack depth, the surplus pressure that can bear, remanent fatigue life and corresponding safe score value;

Adopt Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation System, quantification combines with qualitative analysis, collection is passed judgment in the actual foundation of incorporation engineering, set up the comprehensive judgment matrix of passing judgment on, damage ratio according to each Failure Factors on pressure vessel and the total damage ratio of weight calculation on pressure vessel safety impact thereof, abandon the mode that adopts single angle evaluation, too relies on expertise or field data, consider all principal elements that affect inservice pressure vessel security, and the connecting each other of clearly each influence factor, make comprehensive safety evaluation.

Further, adopt magnetic memory detecting method to realize the quantification of planar disfigurement, concrete grammar is as follows:

The detection of defect: use TSC-2M-8 type metal magnetic memory testing instrument to carry out comprehensive detection to inservice pressure vessel, adopt the channel compensation background magnetic field method of inhibitioning, the 1-3 sensor of parallel arrangement for detection of, No. 4 sensors are used for compensate for background magnetic field;

The quantification of planar disfigurement: the length of detection data substitution invention formula being carried out to Calculation Plane defect:

l max=max[|x 2-x 1|,|x 4-x 3|,|x 6-x 5|]

l min=min[|x 2-x 1|,|x 4-x 3|,|x 6-x 5|]

l = 0.95 l max + l min 2

In formula: x 1-first passage normal component crest location;

X 2-first passage normal component wave trough position;

X 3-second channel normal component crest location;

X 4-second channel normal component wave trough position;

X 5-third channel normal component crest location;

X 6-third channel normal component wave trough position;

L maxthe maximal value of distance between-first, second and third passage normal component crest and trough;

L minthe minimum value of distance between-first, second and third passage normal component crest and trough;

The length of l-planar disfigurement;

Detection data substitution invention formula is carried out to the degree of depth of Calculation Plane defect:

h=0.048Hp ymax-0.9955k-0.1343

In formula: Hp ymaxthe maximal value of magnetic field normal component in first, second and third passage of-magnetic memory detector;

The maximal value of magnetic field gradient in first, second and third passage of k-magnetic memory detector;

The degree of depth of h-planar disfigurement.

Further, in fuzzy synthesis safety evaluation process, first use metal magnetic memory testing instrument to carry out comprehensive detection to inservice pressure vessel, detecting data substitution formula, make quantifying defects, then the evaluation of carrying out inservice pressure vessel planar disfigurement Failure Factors according to the quantized result of defect is: the fracture assessment of planar disfigurement, the fatigue assessment of planar disfigurement, then set up fuzzy comprehensive evoluation system according to each Failure Factors, inservice pressure vessel is carried out to comprehensive safety judge.

Further, inservice pressure vessel Failure Factors evaluation:

The fracture assessment of planar disfigurement, assessment method is to adopt the method for Failure Assessment Diagrams to carry out, Failure Assessment Curves equation is:

K r = ( 1 - 0.14 L r 2 ) ( 0.3 + 0.7 e - 0.65 L r β )

The equation of perpendicular line is:

value depend on properties of materials:

To austenitic stainless steel,

To the mild carbon steel without yield point elongation and austenitic stainless steel weld joint,

To the low alloy steel without yield point elongation and weld seam thereof,

For the material with long yield point elongation, when material temperature is not during higher than 200 DEG C, can be according to K rvalue and material yield intensity rank;

For not determining by steel classification material, can be calculated as follows value:

L r max = σ ‾ / σ s = 0.5 ( σ b + σ s ) / σ s .

Further, the Assessment Method for Fatigue of planar disfigurement:

Flat first according to fatigue crack growth rate da/dN and crack tip stress intensity factor amplitude of variation Δ K relational expression determine propagation and the final size of fatigue crack in the cycle period of regulation; Then according to given criterion and method, judge whether this planar disfigurement can occur to leak and fatigue break.

Further, Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation System comprises:

Set up set of factors:

Affect the main Failure Factors compositing factor set of inservice pressure vessel security, get the second level factor U={u 1, u 2, u 3, u 4}={ defect, vitals, material, internal environment }, u 1={ u 11, u 12}={ planar disfigurement fracture failure, the fatigue failure of planar disfigurement }, u 2={ u 21, u 22, u 23, u 24}={ glue core, piston, O-ring seal, hydraulic control oil circuit }, u 3={ u 31, u 32, u 33}={ materials processing quality, the mechanical property of materials, design rationality }, u 4={ u 41, u 42, u 43}={ pressure, temperature, corrosivity };

Set up and pass judgment on collection:

For each judging quota is carried out to quantitative test, need to determine the judge collection of each index, adopt 5 grades of centesimal system to pass judgment on and divide 5 evaluation ranks, i.e. V={v passing judgment on collection V 1, v 2, v 3, v 4, v 5}={ is minimum, very little, little, larger, large }, wherein v 1minimum for inservice pressure vessel multifactor failure danger, scoring interval is 90~100, and intermediate value is 95; v 2for danger is very little, scoring interval is 80~89, and intermediate value is 84.5; The rest may be inferred; Select the intermediate value in each interval as the parameter of grade, 5 corresponding parameters of grade are that { 95,84.5,74.5,64.5,49.5}, Argument List vector is ν={ 95,84.5,74.5,64.5,49.5} t;

Set up weight sets:

(1) set up Recurison order hierarchy structure:

Be judgment index system according to the inservice pressure vessel evaluation factor collection of setting up, each factor that problem is comprised is divided into four levels: ground floor is the general objective layer G passing judgment on, i.e. inservice pressure vessel comprehensive safety degree; The second layer is rule layer C, i.e. defect, vitals, material and internal environment; Finally using each specific targets as the 3rd layer, i.e. indicator layer P;

(2) structure compares judgment matrix between two:

Successively each key element is carried out to importance degree assignment between any two according to 1~9 scaling law, Judgement Matricies U=(u ij) n × n, wherein u ijexpression factor u iand u jwith respect to the importance value of rule layer, matrix U has character: u ii=1, u ij=1/u ji, i, j=1,2 ..., n, draws judgment matrix: by matrix X 1~X 5press row normalization, that is:

y ij = x ij Σ i = 1 n x ij ( i , j = 1,2 · · · n )

Calculating matrix Y is:

Y 1 = 0.681 0.732 0.572 0.667 0.136 0.146 0.214 0.190 0.085 0.049 0.071 0.048 0.098 0.073 0.143 0.095

Y 2 = 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Y 3 = 0.293 0.348 0.353 0.279 0.073 0.087 0.118 0.093 0.049 0.043 0.059 0.070 0.585 0.522 0.470 0.558

Y 4 = 0.652 0.556 0.692 0.131 0.111 0.077 0.217 0.333 0.231

Y 5 = 0.732 0.789 0.600 0.146 0.158 0.300 0.122 0.053 0.100

(3) calculating of element relative weighting under single criterion:

Y matrix is added by row, by formula draw:

W 1=(2.652?0.686?0.253?0.409) T

W 2=(1?1) T

W 3=(1.273?0.371?0.221?2.135) T

W 4=(1.9?0.319?0.781) T

W 5=(2.121?0.604?0.275) T

By being normalized with vector of obtaining, by formula can obtain weight vector:

W ‾ 1 = 0.663 0.172 0.063 0.102 T

W ‾ 2 = 0.5 0.5 T

W ‾ 3 = 0.381 0.093 0.055 0.534 T

W ‾ 4 = 0.633 0.106 0.261 T

W ‾ 5 = 0.707 0.201 0.092 T

(4) consistency check of judgment matrix:

Calculate the maximum characteristic root λ of judgment matrix max, by formula calculate:

λ ‾ max 1 = 4.085

λ ‾ max 2 = 2

λ ‾ max 3 = 4.031

λ ‾ max 4 = 0.304

λ ‾ max 5 = 3.096

According to formula CI = - 1 n - 1 Σ i = 2 n λ i = λ max - n n - 1 ( n > 1 ) Carry out consistency check, obtain:

CI 1=0.019

CI 2=0

CI 3=0.031

CI 4=0.020

CI 5=0.048

By formula CR = CI RI :

CR 1=0.022

CR 2=0

CR 3=0.035

CR 4=0.038

CR 5=0.092

CR < 0.1, all meets coherence request, therefore the relative weighting of each factor W &OverBar; 1 = 0.663 0.172 0.063 0.102 T , W &OverBar; 2 = 0.5 0.5 T , W &OverBar; 3 = 0.381 0.093 0.055 0.534 T , W &OverBar; 4 = 0.633 0.106 0.261 T , W &OverBar; 5 = 0.707 0.201 0.092 T ;

Degree of membership is calculated:

Use Frequency statistics method, the indices of being passed judgment on graded by the hazard level of passing judgment on set pair inservice pressure vessel indices, obtain the degree of membership of set of factors:

Definite judge is subordinate to matrix:

Relative degree of membership matrix by obtaining k set of factors:

R k = r k 11 &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; r k 1 n &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; r km 1 &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; r kmn

Wherein: r kij = p kij &Sigma; j p kij

In formula: R kthe relative degree of membership matrix of the-the k set of factors;

R kiji factor of the-the k set of factors belongs to the degree of membership of passing judgment on concentrated j;

P kij-expert group is rated the frequency of j to i factor index of k set of factors;

Structure fuzzy evaluation matrix:

By the weight vector of each index can construct fuzzy evaluation matrix B with matrix R.

B = W &OverBar; &CenterDot; R

Calculate comprehensive evaluation result:

By the Argument List vector of fuzzy evaluation matrix B and judge collection.Can try to achieve comprehensive evaluation result Z.

Z=B·V

Arrive can be obtained fom the above equation the result of fuzzy comprehensive evoluation, then according to evaluation rank regulation, can evaluate the dangerous size of inservice pressure vessel multifactor failure.

Inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method provided by the invention, adopt magnetic memory detecting method, detect inservice pressure vessel planar disfigurement, realize the quantification of defect by the computing formula with degree of precision, thus make the result that detects more accurately, true, reliable; Adopt the testing result of magnetic memory to carry out the fracture assessment of planar disfigurement, the fatigue assessment of planar disfigurement to inservice pressure vessel, and calculate the damage that inservice pressure vessel is caused; Draw the technical indicators such as the maximum pressure that inservice pressure vessel can bear, final crack length, final crack depth, the surplus pressure that can bear, remanent fatigue life and corresponding safe score value, overcome can not detection of dynamic disaster trend difficulty, can find in time disaster better, more accurately, accomplish to prevent in advance; Adopt Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation System, quantification combines with qualitative analysis, collection is passed judgment in the actual foundation of incorporation engineering, set up the comprehensive judgment matrix of passing judgment on, damage ratio according to each Failure Factors on pressure vessel and the total damage ratio of weight calculation on pressure vessel safety impact thereof, abandon the mode that adopts single angle evaluation, too relies on expert or field data, consider all principal elements that affect inservice pressure vessel security, and the connecting each other of clearly each influence factor, make on this basis comprehensive safety evaluation; Whether can not only correctly draw can trouble free service conclusion, can also solve the problem of safe coefficient; Simplify Appraisal process, eliminate the subjectivity randomness of passing judgment on, be convenient to common engineering technical personnel and be applied to engineering reality.Reliability of the present invention is high, operability good, makes assessment result reflect engineering reality more objective reality.

Brief description of the drawings

Fig. 1 is the process flow diagram of the inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method that provides of the embodiment of the present invention;

Fig. 2 is the planar disfigurement Failure Assessment schematic diagram that the embodiment of the present invention provides;

Fig. 3 is that the embodiment of the present invention provides value legend schematic diagram;

Fig. 4 is the stress range distribution straight line schematic diagram that the embodiment of the present invention provides.

Embodiment

In order to make object of the present invention, technical scheme and advantage clearer, below in conjunction with embodiment, the present invention is further elaborated.Should be appreciated that specific embodiment described herein, only in order to explain the present invention, is not intended to limit the present invention.

Below in conjunction with drawings and the specific embodiments, application principle of the present invention is further described.

As shown in Figure 1, the inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method of the embodiment of the present invention comprises the following steps:

S101: adopt magnetic memory detecting method, detect inservice pressure vessel planar disfigurement, realize the quantification of defect by computing formula;

S102: adopt the testing result of magnetic memory to carry out the fracture assessment of planar disfigurement, the fatigue assessment of planar disfigurement to inservice pressure vessel, and calculate the damage that inservice pressure vessel is caused; Draw the technical indicators such as the maximum pressure that inservice pressure vessel can bear, final crack length, final crack depth, the surplus pressure that can bear, remanent fatigue life and corresponding safe score value;

S103: adopt Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation System, quantification combines with qualitative analysis, collection is passed judgment in the actual foundation of incorporation engineering, set up the comprehensive judgment matrix of passing judgment on, damage ratio according to each Failure Factors on pressure vessel and the total damage ratio of weight calculation on pressure vessel safety impact thereof, abandon the mode that adopts single angle evaluation, too relies on expertise or field data, consider all principal elements that affect inservice pressure vessel security, and the connecting each other of clearly each influence factor, make on this basis comprehensive safety evaluation.

By following embodiment, result of use of the present invention is described further:

1, adopt magnetic memory detecting method to realize the quantification of defect, concrete grammar is as follows:

The detection of 1.1 defects:

Use the TSC-2M-8 type metal magnetic memory testing instrument of being produced by Russia to carry out comprehensive detection to inservice pressure vessel, detecting step strictly carries out according to TSC-2M-8 operational manual, " magnetic memory-system " software is installed on computers, testing result is imported to this software, adopt channel compensation background magnetic field inhibition method, the 1-3 sensor of parallel arrangement for detection of, No. 4 sensors are for compensate for background magnetic field.Technical device performance parameter is in Table 1-1, and in process of the test, parameter remains unchanged.

Table 1-1TSC-2M-8 type metal magnetic memory testing instrument technical feature parameter

The quantification of 1.2 planar disfigurements:

(1) will detect data substitutions invention formula and come the length of Calculation Plane defect:

l max=max[|x 2-x 1|,|x 4-x 3|,|x 6-x 5|]

l min=min[|x 2-x 1|,|x 4-x 3|,|x 6-x 5|]

l = 0.95 l max + l min 2 ( 1 - 1 )

In formula: x 1-first passage normal component crest location;

X 2-first passage normal component wave trough position;

X 3-second channel normal component crest location;

X 4-second channel normal component wave trough position;

X 5-third channel normal component crest location;

X 6-third channel normal component wave trough position;

L maxthe maximal value of distance between-first, second and third passage normal component crest and trough;

L minthe minimum value of distance between-first, second and third passage normal component crest and trough;

The length of l-planar disfigurement.

(2) will detect data substitutions invention formula and come the degree of depth of Calculation Plane defect:

h=0.048Hp ymax-0.9955k-0.1343???(1-2)

In formula: Hp ymaxthe maximal value of magnetic field normal component in first, second and third passage of-magnetic memory detector;

The maximal value of magnetic field gradient in first, second and third passage of k-magnetic memory detector;

The degree of depth of h-planar disfigurement.

2, comprehensive safety is passed judgment on the basic ideas of new method:

The principal element that affects inservice pressure vessel security performance relates to the synthtic price index of quantification and qualitative analysis.Therefore it is rational, using fuzzy comprehensive evoluation system to carry out comprehensive safety judge to inservice pressure vessel.

In fuzzy synthesis safety evaluation process, the factor that affects inservice pressure vessel security performance is many-sided, and the weight of each influence factor is also different.Therefore, in the time carrying out fuzzy synthesis safety evaluation, can follow such principle: the expert who invites pressure vessel safety judge aspect, through discussion, determine as the case may be judging quota collection and each judging quota Evaluation criterion collection, then use analytical hierarchy process to determine the weight of each judging quota, set up judgment matrix, level single-row, calculates maximum characteristic root λ max, carry out consistency check, to every judging quota marking, finally calculate judging quota.

So, first use metal magnetic memory testing instrument to carry out comprehensive detection to inservice pressure vessel, detecting data substitution invention formula, make quantifying defects, then the evaluation of carrying out inservice pressure vessel planar disfigurement Failure Factors according to the quantized result of defect is: the fracture assessment of planar disfigurement, the fatigue assessment of planar disfigurement, set up fuzzy comprehensive evoluation system according to each Failure Factors again, inservice pressure vessel is carried out to comprehensive safety evaluation.

3, inservice pressure vessel Failure Factors evaluation:

The fracture assessment of 3.1 planar disfigurements:

(1) assessment method:

The routine evaluation of planar disfigurement adopts the method for general Failure Assessment Diagrams to carry out, and this Failure Assessment Diagrams as shown in Figure 2.

Failure Assessment Curves in Fig. 2 (FAC) equation is:

K r = ( 1 - 0.14 L r 2 ) ( 0.3 + 0.7 e - 0.65 L r &beta; )

The equation of perpendicular line is:

value depend on properties of materials:

To austenitic stainless steel,

To the mild carbon steel without yield point elongation and austenitic stainless steel weld joint,

To the low alloy steel without yield point elongation and weld seam thereof,

For the material with long yield point elongation, generally, when material temperature is not during higher than 200 DEG C, can be according to K rvalue and material yield intensity rank, determine by showing 1-2 in GB/T19624-2004;

For not determining by steel classification material, can be calculated as follows value:

L r max = &sigma; &OverBar; / &sigma; s = 0.5 ( &sigma; b + &sigma; s ) / &sigma; s

In Fig. 2, by FAC curve, within the region that straight line and two rectangular axes surround, being place of safety, is non-security district outside this region;

In the time of the calculating of evaluation point, relevant input parameter should be got corresponding partial safety factor according to the regulation of showing 1-3 in GB/T19624-2004.

(2) sign of defect:

To the defect of finding out through inspection, carry out the regularization of defect according to physical location shape and size by the regulation of the sign of planar disfigurement, and characterized accordingly crack size a, c.

While carrying out man-rate, by following provisions, the planar disfigurement of actual measurement is carried out to regularization characterization process, defect is characterized by crack surfaces defect, the embed crack of regularization and penetrates defect.Crackle after sign be shaped as ellipse, circle or rectangle.Characterizing crack size should be determined by the height of defect boundary rectangle and length according to concrete defect situation.To penetrated crack, long is 2a; Effects on surface crackle, height is a, the long 2c of being; To embed crack, height is 2a, the long 2c of being; To hole Corner Cracks, height is a, the long c of being.The length limit of defect boundary rectangle should be parallel with contiguous surface of shell.This sign crack size is multiplied by shows sign crackle partial safety factor that 1-3-1 specifies as sign crack size a, the c value of calculating use in GB/T19624-2004.

1) regularization of surface imperfection and sign crack size

If defect is l along the actual measurement maximum length of surface of shell direction, be h along the actual measurement depth capacity of thickness of slab direction:

In the time of h > 0.7B, rule turns to the penetrated crack of long 2a=l+2h;

In the time of h≤0.7B:

(a), when h < l/2, rule turns to the semiellipse surface crack of c=l/2, a=h;

(b), when h >=l/2, for fracture assessment, rule turns to the semicircular surface crack of c=a=h; To fatigue assessment, rule turns to the semiellipse surface crack of c=l/2, a=h;

2) sign of shear crack

In the time of crack planes direction and principal direction of stress out of plumb, crackle can be projected in the plane vertical with principal direction of stress, in this plane, press projection size and determine sign crack size.

3) crackle group's processing

When two crackles or multiple cracks are when adjacent, should consider influencing each other between crackle.Can first determine the distance s between crackle and merge critical gap s 0; In the merging rule of the coplanar cracks providing, crack spacing s and merging distance s 0definite principle and typical case.

(a)s=s 2、s 0=2c 2

(b) if s=s 1, s 0=2a 2; Otherwise s=s 2, s 0=2c 2;

(c)s=s 2、s 0=2a 2

4) the compound and processing that influences each other of coplanar cracks

(a) if s≤s 0, with this two crackle of envelope (or more than two s≤s 0crackle) circumscribed rectangle it is compound, rule turns to a crackle.Crackle after compound no longer characterizes, also no longer compound with other crackles or composite mode crack.Influencing each other between the crackle after compound and other crackles or composite mode crack determined by regulation b) or c).

(b) if s 0< s < 5s 0, two crackles needn't merge, and press respectively single crack evaluation, but will consider the impact that it is mutual.Simplify evaluation in, calculating value will be multiplied by 1.2 coefficient; In conventional evaluation, at calculating K rtime stress intensity factor to be multiplied by elastoplasticity interference effect coefficient G; In fatigue assessment, in the time calculating Δ K, to be multiplied by linear elasticity interference effect coefficient M.The regulation that the computing method of above-mentioned G value and M value are shown in GB/T19624-2004 appendix A.

(c) if s>=5s 0, can ignore it and influence each other, evaluate as single crack respectively.

5) processing of non-coplanar cracks

(a) two partly through cracks are adjacent and not coplanar.Minor increment s between two crack surfaces 3be less than less sign crack size a 22 times time, i.e. s 3< 2a 2, this two Crack can be considered coplanar.

(b) two penetrated cracks are adjacent and not coplanar.Minor increment s between two crack surfaces 3be less than less sign crack size a 22 times time, i.e. s 3< 2a 2, this two Crack can be considered coplanar.

(c) penetrated crack is adjacent and not coplanar with a partly through crack.Minor increment s between crack surface 3while being less than less sign crack length, i.e. s 3< 2c 2(s 3< 2a 2), this two Crack can be considered coplanar.

(d) non-coplanar cracks rule turns to after coplanar cracks, also should consider influencing each other between crackle.

(e) all non-coplanar cracks that can not be considered as coplanar cracks processing, all should evaluate one by one separately.

(3) determining of stress

Required primary stress and the components of stress p of secondary stress in conventional evaluation m, p b, Q m, Q bdetermine by following provisions:

---the pressure of medium and the stress of generation thereof;

---the stress of additional mechanical load and generation thereof;

1) stress of taking in evaluation is rejected region principle stress.While calculating this principle stress, adopt linear elasticity computing method, and suppose not exist in structure defect.

Thick cyclinder is subject to interior pressure to make used time stress analysis solution:

(a) the stress solution on xsect:

Have classical Lame solution according to elastic plane strain problems (when thick cyclinder is subject to interior pressure), its stress state can be expressed as: &sigma; &rho; = - b 2 &rho; 2 - 1 b 2 a 2 - 1 q a ,

Illustrate: for different pressure vessels, internal-and external diameter is got respectively the internal-and external diameter of the weak location of housing.

(b) axial stress solution:

Can obtain according to symmetry: &sigma; x = A a A b - A a q a ;

Superposition principle superimposed stress state: &sigma; &rho; = - b 2 &rho; 2 - 1 b 2 a 2 - 1 q a , &sigma; x = A a A b - A a q a

(c) near I type crackle or semiellipse crackle " working as terrestrial stress ": or σ x.

2) the Stress Linearization rule of defect area:

For the stress along thickness nonlinear Distribution, according to ensureing that within the scope of whole defect long (or dark) degree the principle that linearization stress value everywhere is all not less than actual stress value determines the linear distribution stress along rejected region cross section.

3) answer resolution of force and p m, p b, Q m, Q bdetermine:

For along thickness lineal layout or through linearization stress after treatment, be decomposed into membrane stress component σ by following formula mwith bending stress component σ b:

σ m=(σ 12)/2

σ B=(σ 12)/2

By primary stress decompose and σ m, σ b, be respectively Q m, Q b.

4) calculate respectively the algebraic sum of all kinds of components of stress, and be multiplied by the stress partial safety factor of showing 1-3 defined in GB/T19624-2004, each stress value of obtaining is thus the stress p for evaluating calculating m, p b, Q m, Q b.

In GB/T19624-2004, show the conventional evaluation of 1-3 safety coefficient value

(4) determining of material property data:

By in GB/T19624-2004 5.5 and the regulation of Appendix B, determine the yield point σ of material under evaluation operating mode sand tensile strength sigma band J integration fracture toughness J iC; J iCvalue is by the desirable J of actual conditions ivalue or J isvalue, also can conservatively get J 0.05try to achieve by following formula:

K C = EJ IC / ( 1 . . . &nu; 2 )

Can not directly obtain J iCwhen value, can directly measure the Plane Strain Fracture Toughness K of material iCnow calculating K rrequired K cbe worth available K iCvalue replaces; Also can adopt CTOD fracture toughness δ cvalue, by following formula estimation K cthe value of rolling off the production line:

K C = 1.5 &delta; C E / ( 1 - &nu; 2 )

(5) with calculating:

Primary stress P m, P bwith secondary stress Q m, Q hstress intensity factor under effect calculate by the regulation of Appendix D in GB/T19624-2004.

(6) K rcalculating:

K is compared in fracture rvalue is calculated as follows:

K r = G ( K 1 P + K 1 P ) / K P + &rho;

In formula: G---elastoplasticity interference effect coefficient between adjacent two crackles, determine by the regulation of appendix A in GB/T19624-2004;

K p---evaluation fracture toughness of materials, the K trying to achieve by 5.7.3.3 in GB/T19624-2004 cvalue is divided by the partial safety factor of showing 1-3 in GB/T19624-2004 and specifying;

ρ---the plastic correcting factor, try to achieve by following formula:

In formula, value can by Fig. 3 according to value check in.L rcalculate and try to achieve by the regulation of 5.7.6 in GB/T19624-2004 and appendix C.

(7) L rcalculating

Load ratio L rcalculate by appendix C regulation in GB/T19624-2004.

(8) safety evaluation

By the K by calculating above rvalue and L revaluation point (the L that value forms r, K r) be painted in conventional evaluation general failure assessment Fig. 2.If within this evaluation point is positioned at place of safety, think that this defect is safe or acceptable through evaluation; Otherwise, think can not ensure safe or unacceptable.If and evaluation point is positioned at above Failure Assessment Curves, allows and adopt the analyzing evaluation method of annex F in GB/T19624-2004 again to evaluate.

The fatigue assessment of 3.2 planar disfigurements

(1) assessment method

The fatigue assessment of planar disfigurement, first according to fatigue crack growth rate da/dN and crack tip stress intensity factor amplitude of variation Δ K relational expression determine propagation and the final size of fatigue crack in the cycle period of regulation; Then according to given criterion and method, judge whether this planar disfigurement can occur to leak and fatigue break.

(2) sign of defect

Press mischief rule, determine the size of fatigue assessment initial crack.

(3) determining of stress range and cycle index

According to the variation course of plus load or temperature, determine respectively distribution curve and the cycle index thereof perpendicular to the primary stress of crack planes and the stress range of secondary stress on cross section, defect place.The stress that is parallel to crack planes is not considered.

1), according to stress range linearization rule, calculate respectively the required membrane stress variation range delta σ of evaluation mwith bending stress variation range delta σ b.

The linearization rule of stress range: define that one linear, each point range of stress value is all not less than the stress range distribution straight line (Fig. 4) of the stress range value on actual distribution curve in fault location wall thickness range, and determine membrane stress variation range delta σ required in fatigue assessment by this linearizing stress range distribution straight line mand bending stress value range Δ σ b;

&Delta;&sigma; m = &Delta;&sigma; 1 + &Delta;&sigma; 2 2 &Delta;&sigma; B = &Delta;&sigma; 1 - &Delta;&sigma; 2 2

In formula, Δ σ 1with Δ σ 2be respectively after linearization the stress range value at inside and outside wall place.

2) the Δ σ being obtained with the stress range distribution curve of primary stress mand Δ σ bfor Δ P mand Δ P b, the Δ σ being obtained with the stress range distribution curve of secondary stress mand Δ σ bfor Δ Q mand Δ Q b.

3) in load change range computation, should comprise the stress range producing due to the fluctuation of on-stream pressure, operating temperature and other external applied loads, and consider their combined effect.Welding residual stress is not considered.

4), when container is subject to biaxial stress fatigue effect, its fatigue assessment is undertaken by uniaxial stress Assessment Method for Fatigue.

(4) determining of material property data

1) the coefficient A in the relational expression of fatigue crack growth rate and Δ K and the value of exponent m:

Sample from military service container as far as possible, test by the regulation of GB6398-1986.According to experimental data, return and obtain A and m by least square method, but with least square method returns the A value obtaining should be multiplied by one be not less than 4.0 coefficient could be as evaluating the A value that take.

In air ambient for 16MnR steel below 100 DEG C, and Δ K is at 300~1500N/mm 3/2in scope time, also desirable: m=3.35 A=6.44 × 10 -14

To σ 0.2the ferritic steel of < 600MPa, in the air ambient that is no more than 100 DEG C, also desirable:

m=3.0???A=6.44×10 -11

When thering is the Fatigue Crack Propagation Mechanism of higher spreading rate with cleavage or microporous polymer etc., should get:

m=3.0???A=6.44×10 -13

2) the stress intensity factor variation range threshold value Δ K of crack Propagation thvalue

In the time that probability of survival is 97.5%, the aerial crack Propagation intensity factor of carbon steel and carbon manganese steel variation range threshold value Δ K thcan estimate with following methods:

For timber:

For welding joint:

(5) determining of the calculating of stress intensity factor variation range delta K and inservice pressure vessel expection cycle index, remanent fatigue life, plastic limit loads, the highest allowable working pressure, the surplus pressure that can bear

According to the sign crack size a obtaining 0and c 0with the stress range Δ σ calculating mwith Δ σ b, calculate stress intensity factor variation range delta K separately by the regulation of Appendix D .1.4 in GB/T19624-2004 awith Δ K c.

1) expection cycle index is permanent width fatigue stress circulation total degree

N = &Integral; a 0 a c da A ( &Delta;k ) m

In formula: N-inservice pressure vessel expection cycle index is permanent width fatigue stress circulation total degree;

A 0-initial crack depth size;

A c-critical crack depth, crack depth at fracture size, 70% of pressure force container wall thickness is 0.7B;

A, m-material property parameter.

2) remanent fatigue life

N s=N-N'

In formula: N s-inservice pressure vessel cycles left number of times is remanent fatigue life;

N'-inservice pressure vessel is cycle index.

3) determining of plastic limit loads

p L 0 = 2 3 &sigma; &OverBar; &prime; ln ( R + B / 2 R - B / 2 )

In formula: p l0the plastic limit loads of-inservice pressure vessel;

-material flow stress, gets the yield point σ that evaluates material under operating mode svalue;

The mean radius of R-inservice pressure vessel;

The calculated thickness of B-inservice pressure vessel.

4) the highest allowable working pressure

p max=p L0

5) surplus pressure that can bear

p'=p max-p"

In formula: the surplus pressure that p'-inservice pressure vessel can bear;

P " the pressure that-inservice pressure vessel has born.

(6) avoid the differentiation of fatigue assessment

By the Δ K that calculates different loads circulation awith Δ K cwith corresponding expection cycle index, if its result be all less than in table 1-4 corresponding each row Δ K value corresponding allow bear cycle index, this defect can avoid fatigue assessment, thinks safe or acceptable.

Table 1-4 avoids fatigue assessment boundary

(7) crack Propagation amount and crackle final size a fand c fcalculating; Crack Propagation amount and a are provided f, c fcycle calculations and segmentation simplify calculate method and step.

1) press stress range course computing method and step one by one:

(a) press a 0, c 0(Δ σ with the 1st circulation m) 1, (Δ σ b) 1calculate respectively (Δ K a) 0(Δ K c) c, and calculate the 1st crack size after circulation.

a 1 = a 0 + A ( &Delta; K a ) 0 m c 1 = c 0 + A ( 0.9 &Delta; K c ) 0 m

(b) press a 1, c 1(Δ σ with the 2nd circulation m) 2, (Δ σ b) 2calculate respectively (Δ K a) 1(Δ K c) 1, and calculate the 2nd crack size after circulation:

a 2 = a 1 + A ( &Delta; K a ) 1 m c 2 = c 1 + A ( 0.9 &Delta;K c ) 1 m

(c) repeat above step, by the good course of stress range, use formula below successively to calculate the crack size after i STRESS VARIATION circulation of experience:

a i = a i - 1 + A ( &Delta;K a ) i - 1 m c i = c i - 1 + A ( 0.9 &Delta;K c ) i - 1 m

(d) repeat above step, until last STRESS VARIATION of expection circulates during evaluation, obtain the final size a of Fatigue fand c f.

Method and the step calculated are simplified in segmentation:

If stress range in d, the cycle index of various STRESS VARIATION is respectively n i(i=1,2 ..., d), and various stress range is substantially evenly respectively within the fatigue assessment cycle, can be by the circulation n of each stress range i(i=1,2 ..., d) being divided into after u section, the cycle index of every section is n i/ u.For banner circulation, the cycle index of every section is N/u, generally gets u=5;

From j=1, stop to j=u, application of formula (3-1) and formula (3-2) can calculate the approximate average a of this compute segment crack size under various stress range effects partially safely piecemeal jand c j, until calculate the final size a of expansion fand c f.

a j = a i - 1 + A &Sigma; i = 1 d n i [ ( &Delta;K a ) i ] j - 1 m / u a f = a 0 + 0.5 A &Sigma; i = 1 d n i [ ( &Delta;K a ) i ] u m / u , j = 1,2 , . . . . . . , u - - - ( 3 - 1 )

c j = c j - 1 + A &Sigma; i = 1 d n i [ ( &Delta;K c ) i ] j - 1 m / u c f = c u + 0.5 A &Sigma; i = 1 d n i [ 0.9 ( &Delta;K c ) i ] u m / u j = 1,2 , . . . . . . , u - - - ( 3 - 2 )

[(Δ K a) i] j-1[(Δ K c) i] j-1be respectively crack size a=a j-1, c=c j-1time i kind (Δ σ m) i(Δ σ b) iunder effect in a and c direction crack tip Δ K value.

As being banner circulation, i.e. d=1, in formula (3-1) and formula (3-2) be reduced to N, (Δ K a) ibe reduced to (Δ K a), (Δ K c) ibe reduced to (Δ K c).

Simplification computing method can ignore c Directional Extension time:

(a) ignore the condition of c Directional Extension

If meet formula (3-3) condition, can ignore c Directional Extension.

ΔK c/ΔK a<0.5???(3-3)

(b) a while ignoring c Directional Extension fcalculating:

The computing method of joint in employing, but do not calculate all parameters about c direction.

(8) security is passed judgment on:

(a) tired leakage evaluated:

Effects on surface crackle: if a f< 0.7B, can not leak.

To embed crack: and can not leak.

(b) fatigue break evaluation:

By the method for conventional evaluation in fracture and plastic failure evaluation, according to final crack size a fand c fthe maximum load stress value bearing with position, defect place ruptures and plastic failure evaluation, if the result of evaluation is safety or acceptable, the inefficacy causing because of fatigue break and plastic failure can not occur.

(c) fatigue safety is passed judgment on:

If fatigue assessment result can meet (a) and condition (b) simultaneously, think that this defect is safe or acceptable; Otherwise, be can not ensure safe or unacceptable.

4, Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation System:

4.1 set up set of factors:

Affect the main Failure Factors compositing factor set of inservice pressure vessel security performance, get the second level factor U={u 1, u 2, u 3, u 4}={ defect, vitals, material, internal environment }, u 1={ u 11, u 12}={ planar disfigurement fracture failure, the fatigue failure of planar disfigurement }, u 2={ u 21, u 22, u 23, u 24}={ glue core, piston, O-ring seal, hydraulic control oil circuit }, u 3={ u 31, u 32, u 33}={ materials processing quality, the mechanical property of materials, design rationality }, u 4={ u 41, u 42, u 43}={ pressure, temperature, corrosivity }.

4.2 set up judge collection

For each judging quota is carried out to quantitative test, need to determine the judge collection of each index, adopt 5 grades of centesimal system to pass judgment on and divide 5 evaluation ranks, i.e. V={v passing judgment on collection V 1, v 2, v 3, v 4, v 5}={ is minimum, very little, little, larger, large }, wherein v 1for inservice pressure vessel multifactor failure danger " minimum ", scoring interval is 90~100, and intermediate value is 95; v 2for dangerous " very little ", scoring interval is 80~89, and intermediate value is 84.5; The rest may be inferred.Select the intermediate value in each interval as the parameter of grade, 5 corresponding parameters of grade are that { 95,84.5,74.5,64.5,49.5}, its Argument List vector is ν={ 95,84.5,74.5,64.5,49.5} t.

4.3 set up weight sets:

(1) set up Recurison order hierarchy structure:

Be judgment index system according to the 4.1 inservice pressure vessel evaluation factor collection of setting up, each factor that problem is comprised is divided into four levels: ground floor is the general objective layer G passing judgment on, i.e. inservice pressure vessel comprehensive safety degree; The second layer is rule layer C, i.e. defect, vitals, material and internal environment; Finally using each specific targets as the 3rd layer, i.e. indicator layer P;

(2) structure compares judgment matrix between two:

Successively each key element is carried out to importance degree assignment between any two, Judgement Matricies U=(u according to " 1~9 scaling law " (as shown in table 1-5) ij) n × n, wherein u ijexpression factor u iand u jwith respect to the importance value of rule layer, matrix U has character: u ii=1, u ij=1/u ji, i, j=1,2 ..., n.The judgment matrix obtaining is as shown in table 1-6~1-10.

The design of table 1-5 regularity scale

Table 1-6u 1-u 4judgment matrix

Table 1-7u 11-u 12judgment matrix

Table 1-9u 31-u 33judgment matrix

Table 1-10u 41-u 43judgment matrix

By table, 1-6~1-10 draws judgment matrix:

X 1 = 1 5 8 7 1 / 5 1 3 2 1 / 8 1 / 3 1 1 / 2 1 / 7 1 / 2 2 1

X 2 = 1 1 1 1

X 3 = 1 4 6 1 / 2 1 / 4 1 2 1 / 6 1 / 6 1 / 2 1 1 / 8 2 6 8 1

X 4 = 1 5 3 1 / 5 1 1 / 3 1 / 3 3 1

X 5 = 1 5 6 1 / 5 1 3 1 / 6 1 / 3 1

By matrix X 1~X 5press row normalization, that is:

y ij = x ij &Sigma; i = 1 n x ij ( i , j = 1,2 &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; n )

Calculating matrix Y by formula is above:

Y 1 = 0.681 0.732 0.572 0.667 0.136 0.146 0.214 0.190 0.085 0.049 0.071 0.048 0.098 0.073 0.143 0.095

Y 2 = 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Y 3 = 0.293 0.348 0.353 0.279 0.073 0.087 0.118 0.093 0.049 0.043 0.059 0.070 0.585 0.522 0.470 0.558

Y 4 = 0.652 0.556 0.692 0.131 0.111 0.077 0.217 0.333 0.231

Y 5 = 0.732 0.789 0.600 0.146 0.158 0.300 0.122 0.053 0.100

(3) calculating of element relative weighting under single criterion:

Y matrix is added by row, by formula draw:

W 1=(2.652?0.686?0.253?0.409) T

W 2=(1?1) T

W 3=(1.273?0.371?0.221?2.135) T

W 4=(1.9?0.319?0.781) T

W 5=(2.121?0.604?0.275) T

By being normalized with vector of obtaining, by formula can obtain weight vector:

W &OverBar; 1 = 0.663 0.172 0.063 0.102 T

W &OverBar; 2 = 0.5 0.5 T

W &OverBar; 3 = 0.381 0.093 0.055 0.534 T

W &OverBar; 4 = 0.633 0.106 0.261 T

W &OverBar; 5 = 0.707 0.201 0.092 T

(4) consistency check of judgment matrix:

Calculate the maximum characteristic root λ of judgment matrix max, by formula calculate:

&lambda; &OverBar; max 1 = 4.085

&lambda; &OverBar; max 2 = 2

&lambda; &OverBar; max 3 = 4.031

&lambda; &OverBar; max 4 = 0.304

&lambda; &OverBar; max 5 = 3.096

According to formula CI = - 1 n - 1 &Sigma; i = 2 n &lambda; i = &lambda; max - n n - 1 ( n > 1 ) Carry out consistency check, obtain:

CI 1=0.019

CI 2=0

CI 3=0.031

CI 4=0.020

CI 5=0.048

By formula (calculating the mean random coincident indicator RI obtaining for 1000 times in Table 1-11 by 1~15 positive and negative inverse matrix in rank):

CR 1=0.022

CR 2=0

CR 3=0.035

CR 4=0.038

CR 5=0.092

CR < 0.1, all meets coherence request.Therefore the relative weighting of each factor W &OverBar; 1 = 0.663 0.172 0.063 0.102 T , W &OverBar; 2 = 0.5 0.5 T , W &OverBar; 3 = 0.381 0.093 0.055 0.534 T , W &OverBar; 4 = 0.633 0.106 0.261 T , W &OverBar; 5 = 0.707 0.201 0.092 T .

Table 1-11 mean random coincident indicator RI:

4.4 degrees of membership are calculated:

Use Frequency statistics method, the indices of being passed judgment on is graded by the hazard level of passing judgment on set pair inservice pressure vessel indices, obtain the degree of membership of set of factors.

4.5 determine that judge is subordinate to matrix:

Relative degree of membership matrix by obtaining k set of factors:

R k = r k 11 &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; r k 1 n &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; r km 1 &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; r kmn

Wherein: r kij = p kij &Sigma; j p kij

In formula: R kthe relative degree of membership matrix of the-the k set of factors;

R kiji factor of the-the k set of factors belongs to the degree of membership of passing judgment on concentrated j;

P kij-expert group is rated the frequency of j to i factor index of k set of factors.

4.6 structure fuzzy evaluation matrixes:

Weight vector W and matrix R by each index can construct fuzzy evaluation matrix B.

B = W &OverBar; &CenterDot; R - - - ( 4 - 1 )

4.7 calculate comprehensive evaluation result:

By the Argument List vector of fuzzy evaluation matrix B and judge collection.Can try to achieve comprehensive evaluation result Z.

Z=B·V???(4-2)

The result of fuzzy comprehensive evoluation can be obtained by formula (4-2), then according to evaluation rank regulation, the dangerous size of inservice pressure vessel multifactor failure can be evaluated.

The foregoing is only preferred embodiment of the present invention, not in order to limit the present invention, all any amendments of doing within the spirit and principles in the present invention, be equal to and replace and improvement etc., within all should being included in protection scope of the present invention.

Claims (6)

1. an inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method, is characterized in that, this inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method comprises:
Adopt magnetic memory detecting method, detect inservice pressure vessel planar disfigurement, realize the quantification of defect by computing formula;
Adopt the testing result of magnetic memory to carry out the fracture assessment of planar disfigurement, the fatigue assessment of planar disfigurement to inservice pressure vessel, and calculate the damage that inservice pressure vessel is caused; Draw maximum pressure, final crack length, final crack depth, the surplus pressure that can bear, remanent fatigue life and corresponding safe score value technical indicator that inservice pressure vessel can bear;
Adopt Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation System, quantification combines with qualitative analysis, collection is passed judgment in the actual foundation of incorporation engineering, set up the comprehensive judgment matrix of passing judgment on, damage ratio according to each Failure Factors on pressure vessel and the total damage ratio of weight calculation on pressure vessel safety impact thereof, abandon the mode that adopts single angle evaluation, too relies on expertise or field data, consider all principal elements that affect inservice pressure vessel security, and the connecting each other of clearly each influence factor, make comprehensive safety evaluation.
2. inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method as claimed in claim 1, is characterized in that, adopts magnetic memory detecting method to realize the quantification of defect, and concrete grammar is as follows:
The detection of defect: use TSC-2M-8 type metal magnetic memory testing instrument to carry out comprehensive detection to inservice pressure vessel, adopt the channel compensation background magnetic field method of inhibitioning, the 1-3 sensor of parallel arrangement for detection of, No. 4 sensors are used for compensate for background magnetic field;
The quantification of planar disfigurement: the length of detection data substitution invention formula being carried out to Calculation Plane defect:
l max=max[|x 2-x 1|,|x 4-x 3|,|x 6-x 5|]
l min=min[|x 2-x 1|,|x 4-x 3|,|x 6-x 5|]
l = 0.95 l max + l min 2
In formula: x 1-first passage normal component crest location;
X 2-first passage normal component wave trough position;
X 3-second channel normal component crest location;
X 4-second channel normal component wave trough position;
X 5-third channel normal component crest location;
X 6-third channel normal component wave trough position;
L maxthe maximal value of distance between-first, second and third passage normal component crest and trough;
L minthe minimum value of distance between-first, second and third passage normal component crest and trough;
The length of l-planar disfigurement;
Detection data substitution invention formula is carried out to the degree of depth of Calculation Plane defect:
h=0.048Hp ymax-0.9955k-0.1343
In formula: Hp ymaxthe maximal value of magnetic field normal component in first, second and third passage of-magnetic memory detector;
The maximal value of magnetic field gradient in first, second and third passage of k-magnetic memory detector;
The degree of depth of h-planar disfigurement.
3. inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method as claimed in claim 1, it is characterized in that, in fuzzy synthesis safety evaluation process, first use metal magnetic memory testing instrument to carry out comprehensive detection to inservice pressure vessel, detecting data substitution formula, make quantifying defects, then the evaluation of carrying out inservice pressure vessel planar disfigurement Failure Factors according to the quantized result of defect is: the fracture assessment of planar disfigurement, the fatigue assessment of planar disfigurement, set up fuzzy comprehensive evoluation system according to each Failure Factors again, inservice pressure vessel is carried out to comprehensive safety judge.
4. inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method as claimed in claim 1, is characterized in that, the evaluation of inservice pressure vessel Failure Factors:
The fracture assessment of planar disfigurement, assessment method is to adopt the method for Failure Assessment Diagrams to carry out, Failure Assessment Curves equation is:
K r = ( 1 - 0.14 L r 2 ) ( 0.3 + 0.7 e - 0.65 L r &beta; )
The equation of perpendicular line is:
value depend on properties of materials:
To austenitic stainless steel,
To the mild carbon steel without yield point elongation and austenitic stainless steel weld joint,
To the low alloy steel without yield point elongation and weld seam thereof,
For the material with long yield point elongation, when material temperature is not during higher than 200 DEG C, can be according to K rvalue and material yield intensity rank;
For not determining by steel classification material, can be calculated as follows value:
L r max = &sigma; &OverBar; / &sigma; s = 0.5 ( &sigma; b + &sigma; s ) / &sigma; s .
5. inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method as claimed in claim 1, is characterized in that the Assessment Method for Fatigue of planar disfigurement:
Flat first according to fatigue crack growth rate da/dN and crack tip stress intensity factor amplitude of variation Δ K relational expression determine propagation and the final size of fatigue crack in the cycle period of regulation; Then according to given criterion and method, judge whether this planar disfigurement can occur to leak and fatigue break.
6. inservice pressure vessel quantifying defects comprehensive safety evaluation method as claimed in claim 1, is characterized in that, Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation System comprises:
Set up set of factors:
Affect the main Failure Factors compositing factor set of inservice pressure vessel security performance, get the second level factor U={u 1, u 2, u 3, u 4}={ defect, vitals, material, internal environment }, u 1={ u 11, u 12}={ planar disfigurement fracture failure, the fatigue failure of planar disfigurement }, u 2={ u 21, u 22, u 23, u 24}={ glue core, piston, O-ring seal, hydraulic control oil circuit }, u 3={ u 31, u 32, u 33}={ materials processing quality, the mechanical property of materials, design rationality }, u 4={ u 41, u 42, u 43}={ pressure, temperature, corrosivity };
Set up and pass judgment on collection:
For each judging quota is carried out to quantitative test, need to determine the judge collection of each index, adopt 5 grades of centesimal system to pass judgment on and divide 5 evaluation ranks, i.e. V={v passing judgment on collection V 1, v 2, v 3, v 4, v 5}={ is minimum, very little, little, larger, large }, wherein v 1minimum for inservice pressure vessel multifactor failure danger, scoring interval is 90~100, and intermediate value is 95; v 2for danger is very little, scoring interval is 80~89, and intermediate value is 84.5; The rest may be inferred; Select the intermediate value in each interval as the parameter of grade, 5 corresponding parameters of grade are that { 95,84.5,74.5,64.5,49.5}, Argument List vector is ν={ 95,84.5,74.5,64.5,49.5} t;
Set up weight sets:
(1) set up Recurison order hierarchy structure:
Be judgment index system according to the inservice pressure vessel evaluation factor collection of setting up, each factor that problem is comprised is divided into four levels: ground floor is the general objective layer G passing judgment on, i.e. inservice pressure vessel comprehensive safety degree; The second layer is rule layer C, i.e. defect, vitals, material and internal environment; Finally using each specific targets as the 3rd layer, i.e. indicator layer P;
(2) structure compares judgment matrix between two:
Successively each key element is carried out to importance degree assignment between any two according to 1~9 scaling law, Judgement Matricies U=(u ij) n × n, wherein u ijexpression factor u iand u jwith respect to the importance value of rule layer, matrix U has character: u ii=1, u ij=1/u ji, i, j=1,2 ..., n, draws judgment matrix: by matrix X 1~X 5press row normalization, that is:
y ij = x ij &Sigma; i = 1 n x ij ( i , j = 1,2 &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; n )
Calculating matrix Y is:
Y 1 = 0.681 0.732 0.572 0.667 0.136 0.146 0.214 0.190 0.085 0.049 0.071 0.048 0.098 0.073 0.143 0.095
Y 2 = 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Y 3 = 0.293 0.348 0.353 0.279 0.073 0.087 0.118 0.093 0.049 0.043 0.059 0.070 0.585 0.522 0.470 0.558
Y 4 = 0.652 0.556 0.692 0.131 0.111 0.077 0.217 0.333 0.231
Y 5 = 0.732 0.789 0.600 0.146 0.158 0.300 0.122 0.053 0.100
(3) calculating of element relative weighting under single criterion:
Y matrix is added by row, by formula draw:
W 1=(2.652?0.686?0.253?0.409) T
W 2=(1?1) T
W 3=(1.273?0.371?0.221?2.135) T
W 4=(1.9?0.319?0.781) T
W 5=(2.121?0.604?0.275) T
By being normalized with vector of obtaining, by formula can obtain weight vector:
W &OverBar; 1 = 0.663 0.172 0.063 0.102 T
W &OverBar; 2 = 0.5 0.5 T
W &OverBar; 3 = 0.381 0.093 0.055 0.534 T
W &OverBar; 4 = 0.633 0.106 0.261 T
W &OverBar; 5 = 0.707 0.201 0.092 T
(4) consistency check of judgment matrix:
Calculate the maximum characteristic root λ of judgment matrix max, by formula calculate:
&lambda; &OverBar; max 1 = 4.085
&lambda; &OverBar; max 2 = 2
&lambda; &OverBar; max 3 = 4.031
&lambda; &OverBar; max 4 = 0.304
&lambda; &OverBar; max 5 = 3.096
According to formula CI = - 1 n - 1 &Sigma; i = 2 n &lambda; i = &lambda; max - n n - 1 ( n > 1 ) Carry out consistency check, obtain:
CI 1=0.019
CI 2=0
CI 3=0.031
CI 4=0.020
CI 5=0.048
By formula CR = CI RI :
CR 1=0.022
CR 2=0
CR 3=0.035
CR 4=0.038
CR 5=0.092
CR < 0.1, all meets coherence request, therefore the relative weighting of each factor W &OverBar; 1 = 0.663 0.172 0.063 0.102 T , W &OverBar; 2 = 0.5 0.5 T , W &OverBar; 3 = 0.381 0.093 0.055 0.534 T , W &OverBar; 4 = 0.633 0.106 0.261 T , W &OverBar; 5 = 0.707 0.201 0.092 T ;
Degree of membership is calculated:
Use Frequency statistics method, the indices of being passed judgment on graded by the hazard level of passing judgment on set pair inservice pressure vessel indices, obtain the degree of membership of set of factors:
Definite judge is subordinate to matrix:
Relative degree of membership matrix by obtaining k set of factors:
R k = r k 11 &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; r k 1 n &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; r km 1 &CenterDot; &CenterDot; &CenterDot; r kmn
Wherein: r kij = p kij &Sigma; j p kij
In formula: R kthe relative degree of membership matrix of the-the k set of factors;
R kiji factor of the-the k set of factors belongs to the degree of membership of passing judgment on concentrated j;
P kij-expert group is rated the frequency of j to i factor index of k set of factors;
Structure fuzzy evaluation matrix:
Weight vector W and matrix R by each index can construct fuzzy evaluation matrix B,
B = W &OverBar; &CenterDot; R
Calculate comprehensive evaluation result:
By the Argument List vector of fuzzy evaluation matrix B and judge collection, can try to achieve comprehensive evaluation result Z;
Z=B·V
Arrive can be obtained fom the above equation the result of fuzzy comprehensive evoluation, then according to evaluation rank regulation, can evaluate the dangerous size of inservice pressure vessel multifactor failure.
CN201410105913.XA 2014-03-20 2014-03-20 Defect quantified comprehensive safety judgment method for on-service pressure container CN103868985B (en)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN201410105913.XA CN103868985B (en) 2014-03-20 2014-03-20 Defect quantified comprehensive safety judgment method for on-service pressure container

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN201410105913.XA CN103868985B (en) 2014-03-20 2014-03-20 Defect quantified comprehensive safety judgment method for on-service pressure container

Publications (2)

Publication Number Publication Date
CN103868985A true CN103868985A (en) 2014-06-18
CN103868985B CN103868985B (en) 2017-01-18

Family

ID=50907748

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
CN201410105913.XA CN103868985B (en) 2014-03-20 2014-03-20 Defect quantified comprehensive safety judgment method for on-service pressure container

Country Status (1)

Country Link
CN (1) CN103868985B (en)

Cited By (12)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN106952036A (en) * 2017-03-17 2017-07-14 贵州省煤炭产品质量监督检验院 A kind of evaluating explosion risk of chemical device control system based on cloud computing
CN107145608A (en) * 2017-06-12 2017-09-08 武汉梦之蓝科技有限公司 A kind of intelligent environmental sanitation platform application is in the processing management control system of garbage apparatus
CN107274297A (en) * 2017-06-14 2017-10-20 贵州中北斗科技有限公司 A kind of soil crop-planting suitability assessment method
CN107329401A (en) * 2017-06-26 2017-11-07 李昊天 A kind of microscopy laboratory system
CN107478518A (en) * 2017-07-14 2017-12-15 天津大学 Simplified process method containing how oval inner defect in thermal structure
CN107622349A (en) * 2017-09-20 2018-01-23 北华大学 A kind of Health Monitoring for Civil Engineering system and method
CN107677786A (en) * 2017-08-28 2018-02-09 西北工业大学 Cast steel shrinkage defect ranking method
CN107831715A (en) * 2017-11-14 2018-03-23 江苏科沃纺织有限公司 Quality control system in a kind of water pump production
CN108267071A (en) * 2017-01-20 2018-07-10 中国核工业第五建设有限公司 AP1000 nuclear power plant containment shell deformation detecting methods
CN108458752A (en) * 2018-03-23 2018-08-28 于军辉 A kind of control system in damping bridge
CN108828076A (en) * 2018-06-12 2018-11-16 石家庄铁路职业技术学院 A kind of bridge quality analysis system and method based on image analysis
CN109596709A (en) * 2018-12-19 2019-04-09 张磊 A kind of detection method of fixed pressure vessel

Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5901071A (en) * 1994-07-08 1999-05-04 Hitachi, Ltd. Method of evaluating corrosion resistance of metal material, method of designing alloy of high corrosion resistance, method of diagnosing corroded state of metal material, and method of operating plant
CN101122578A (en) * 2007-08-03 2008-02-13 中国人民解放军装甲兵工程学院 Ferromagnetic metal component fatigue crack and stress integrated magnetic memory testing method
CN102157210A (en) * 2010-12-09 2011-08-17 华东理工大学 Simplified assessment method for defects of welding joint area at piping safety end of pressure vessel of AP1000 nuclear reactor
CN102692450A (en) * 2012-05-02 2012-09-26 江苏大学 Method for identifying state of shaped crack of metal drawing part based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation
JP2013019841A (en) * 2011-07-13 2013-01-31 Toshiba Corp Defect evaluation method for structure

Patent Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5901071A (en) * 1994-07-08 1999-05-04 Hitachi, Ltd. Method of evaluating corrosion resistance of metal material, method of designing alloy of high corrosion resistance, method of diagnosing corroded state of metal material, and method of operating plant
CN101122578A (en) * 2007-08-03 2008-02-13 中国人民解放军装甲兵工程学院 Ferromagnetic metal component fatigue crack and stress integrated magnetic memory testing method
CN102157210A (en) * 2010-12-09 2011-08-17 华东理工大学 Simplified assessment method for defects of welding joint area at piping safety end of pressure vessel of AP1000 nuclear reactor
JP2013019841A (en) * 2011-07-13 2013-01-31 Toshiba Corp Defect evaluation method for structure
CN102692450A (en) * 2012-05-02 2012-09-26 江苏大学 Method for identifying state of shaped crack of metal drawing part based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation

Non-Patent Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
俞树荣 等: "含缺陷压力容器完整性的模糊综合评判", 《第四届全国压力容器学术会议论文集》 *
姚海根 等: "压力容器安全性的模糊综合评判", 《压力容器》 *
李超 等: "压力容器焊缝疲劳强度模糊综合分析", 《压力容器》 *

Cited By (14)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN108267071B (en) * 2017-01-20 2020-01-21 中国核工业第五建设有限公司 Method for detecting deformation of containment vessel of AP1000 nuclear power station
CN108267071A (en) * 2017-01-20 2018-07-10 中国核工业第五建设有限公司 AP1000 nuclear power plant containment shell deformation detecting methods
CN106952036A (en) * 2017-03-17 2017-07-14 贵州省煤炭产品质量监督检验院 A kind of evaluating explosion risk of chemical device control system based on cloud computing
CN107145608A (en) * 2017-06-12 2017-09-08 武汉梦之蓝科技有限公司 A kind of intelligent environmental sanitation platform application is in the processing management control system of garbage apparatus
CN107274297A (en) * 2017-06-14 2017-10-20 贵州中北斗科技有限公司 A kind of soil crop-planting suitability assessment method
CN107329401A (en) * 2017-06-26 2017-11-07 李昊天 A kind of microscopy laboratory system
CN107478518A (en) * 2017-07-14 2017-12-15 天津大学 Simplified process method containing how oval inner defect in thermal structure
CN107478518B (en) * 2017-07-14 2019-10-29 天津大学 Simplified process method containing more oval inner defects in thermal structure
CN107677786A (en) * 2017-08-28 2018-02-09 西北工业大学 Cast steel shrinkage defect ranking method
CN107622349A (en) * 2017-09-20 2018-01-23 北华大学 A kind of Health Monitoring for Civil Engineering system and method
CN107831715A (en) * 2017-11-14 2018-03-23 江苏科沃纺织有限公司 Quality control system in a kind of water pump production
CN108458752A (en) * 2018-03-23 2018-08-28 于军辉 A kind of control system in damping bridge
CN108828076A (en) * 2018-06-12 2018-11-16 石家庄铁路职业技术学院 A kind of bridge quality analysis system and method based on image analysis
CN109596709A (en) * 2018-12-19 2019-04-09 张磊 A kind of detection method of fixed pressure vessel

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
CN103868985B (en) 2017-01-18

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Paik Ultimate limit state analysis and design of plated structures
Seo et al. Summary review of structural health monitoring applications for highway bridges
Pasman et al. Past, present and future of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) and the incentive it obtained from Land-Use Planning (LUP)
Ni et al. Monitoring-based fatigue reliability assessment of steel bridges: analytical model and application
Zhao et al. Buckling of ferritic stainless steel members under combined axial compression and bending
Xu et al. Reliability and failure pressure prediction of various grades of pipeline steel in the presence of corrosion defects and pre-strain
Amirat et al. Reliability assessment of underground pipelines under the combined effect of active corrosion and residual stress
Beese et al. Partially coupled anisotropic fracture model for aluminum sheets
Zhang et al. Characterization of plasticity and fracture of shell casing of lithium-ion cylindrical battery
Caines et al. Analysis of pitting corrosion on steel under insulation in marine environments
Netto et al. The effect of corrosion defects on the burst pressure of pipelines
Cosham et al. The pipeline defect assessment manual
US7546224B2 (en) Method for assessing the integrity of a structure
Gomes et al. Optimal inspection planning for onshore pipelines subject to external corrosion
Bisby et al. Strain localisations in FRP-confined concrete: new insights
CN106128528B (en) A kind of method and apparatus for monitoring nuclear power plant reactor pressure vessel irradiation damage
Zhou et al. Model error assessments of burst capacity models for corroded pipelines
Može et al. Investigation of high strength steel connections with several bolts in double shear
Mojtahedi et al. Developing a robust SHM method for offshore jacket platform using model updating and fuzzy logic system
Ayala-Uraga et al. Fatigue reliability-based assessment of welded joints applying consistent fracture mechanics formulations
Zhou et al. Impact of dependent stochastic defect growth on system reliability of corroding pipelines
Zhao et al. Testing and numerical modelling of austenitic stainless steel CHS beam–columns
Zhou System reliability of corroding pipelines
Hasan et al. Probability assessment of burst limit state due to internal corrosion
Chen et al. Failure analysis of high strength pipeline with single and multiple corrosions

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
PB01 Publication
C06 Publication
SE01 Entry into force of request for substantive examination
C10 Entry into substantive examination
CB02 Change of applicant information

Inventor after: Zhang Xiaohong

Inventor after: Liu Jun

Inventor after: Liu Qingyou

Inventor after: Guo Xiaoqiang

Inventor after: Huang Chen

Inventor after: He Xing

Inventor after: Liu Xian

Inventor after: Song Zhiwen

Inventor before: Liu Jun

Inventor before: Zhang Xiaohong

Inventor before: Huang Chen

Inventor before: He Xing

COR Change of bibliographic data
GR01 Patent grant
C14 Grant of patent or utility model