Composite Overwraps for Tank and Pressure Vessel System Repair

Simon Frost, AEA Technology PLC, Culham, Abingdon, Oxfordshire

OX14 3ED
December 2002

1. Introduction

Ageing assets have created a market for repair methodologies that can be used as an
alternative to replacement. This is particularly the case for process systems, e.g. tanks,
vessel, pipework as degradation is often limited to isolated areas and a local repair can be
applied. One such repair solution is composite overwraps. The major benefits of
applying composite overwrap repairs include;

• ease of installation;
• no (or limited) site services required;
• can be applied live.

Also, being able to store on site the repair materials implies that immediate action can be
taken, minimising system downtime. All of the above advantages imply that significant
cost savings can result when compared to alternative repair or replacement solutions.

Repair methods using composite technology have been available for some time and
have tempted and intrigued operators. There are many examples of successful
application. However, success has not been universal. This may have been because
expectations were unrealistic or that the behaviour of the repair material may not have
been properly understood leading to inadequate design, inadequate specification or
improper application. Therefore to minimise these misunderstandings the Composite
Repair Workgroup was established with the objective of delivering a documentation
framework that would take the composite overwrap repair option forward so that it
could realise its full potential. Initially the focus of the Workgroup was on pipework
and this documentation framework is currently being incorporated into an ASME
standard.

Having developed a set of guidelines for the application of composite overwrap repairs
for pipework, the scope of the Workgroup activities has widened to include the repair
of tanks and vessels.

The major design or technical challenges for the repair of a tank or vessel are;

• The calculation of the local stress field around the defect

• Limited length of repair due to geometrical constraints
• Large diameter of vessels implying over-wrapping the whole diameter may not
be practical

The documentation framework for tanks and vessels is currently under development
and the purpose of this paper is to summarise progress to date. The documentation
includes material qualification, design, installation guidance and NDT advice and will
be similar in format and style to that for pipework.

1
2. Documentation framework

For the documentation to be useful it must cover all commercially available repair
products. This implies that it must be performance based. A prescriptive approach that,
for example, gives specific information regarding constituent materials would unlikely
be sufficiently inclusive and almost certainly hinder future product development.

The features of an effective documentation set that covers the repair situation should
include:

• Definitions of types of defects that can and cannot be repaired

• Assessment of the performance envelope of the repair (maximum operating
temperature and pressure for a given service condition)
• Guidance on testing for suppliers to demonstrate fitness for purpose and to
derive design allowables;
• How operators should specify the repair;
• Provision of design methodologies that allow operator and third party
verification;
• Advice on the key issues for control during installation (including surface
preparation);
• Definition of the responsibilities to ensure that repairs are applied safely and with
due regard to the environment;
• Advise operators on issues associated with ongoing operations and NDT
monitoring.

The documentation framework that includes the above features and requirements is
shown in Figure 1. It consists of four documents;

a. Qualification
b. Design
c. Installation
d. Inspection

Operator Operator Operator

data data responsibility

Qualification Design Installation Inspection

Vendor Vendor Vendor Vendor

data data data responsibility

Figure 1: Repair documentation

2
The scope of the documentation for the repair of tanks and vessels includes the
following types of defects;

• External corrosion or damage;

• Internal corrosion, which may or may not be leaking.

The following generic service (internal fluids) conditions are considered;

• Utility fluids, diesel, seawater, glycol;

• Chemicals, produced oil and gas, including gas condensate.

3. Qualification

The objectives of repair system product qualification are to:

• Demonstrate fitness for purpose for the required operating conditions;

• Obtain performance data for use in design calculations;
• Define those parameters and their limits that need to be controlled during either
manufacture or installation.

Product qualification testing represents a compromise between testing rigour and

practical limitations. If the testing requirement is too limited its value will be minimal
and the uncertainty would need to be catered for through the imposition of large safety
factors. Too extensive a test programme would cause the document to fall into
disrepute as it would be impractical to implement.

The qualification requirements for composite repairs to tanks and vessels are the same as
for pipework, [1], and are summarised in the following table.

Material Property Test method

Mechanical Young’s modulus ISO 527
properties Poisson’s ratio ISO 527
Shear modulus ASTM D5379
Thermal expansion coefficient ISO 11359
Glass transition temperature ISO 11357-2 or ISO 75
Adhesion strength Lap shear BS EN 1465
Performance data Long term strength (optional) Spool tests (Ref. [1], App. 4)
Energy release rate Spool tests (Ref. [1], App. 3)

4. Design

The design document provides details on the input information, necessary to specify the
repair and required to perform the design calculation. The outputs of the design
calculation are;

• Repair thickness
• Repair overlay length

The following tank and vessel components and loading situations are considered;

3
 • Cylindrical vessels
o End dome, main body connection
o Supports/saddles/rigid attachments
§ Thrust loading
§ Axial and hoop moment loading
o Tees/nozzles
§ Pressure loading
§ Axial and hoop moment loading
§ Thrust loading

• Spherical vessels
o Supports/saddles/rigid attachments
§ Thrust loading
§ Moment loading
o Tees/nozzles
§ Pressure loading
§ Moment loading
§ Thrust loading

The design approach for repairs to tanks and vessels is comparable that for piping system
design. Basically for each component of the tank or vessel a comparative approach is
adopted based on the equivalent straight pipe component. The design process is to
calculate the repair thickness for the straight pipe section plus additional multiplicative
factors allowing for both the stress intensification due to the geometry of the
component and the possible reduction in overlap area available for repair.

4.1 Straight pipe design

The basic design equations for straight pipe are derived in reference [1]. To calculate the
repair thickness one of two design options is chosen, depending on whether the pipe
substrate is assumed to contribute to carrying the applied load. Either option ensures
that the strength of the repair is sufficient to sustain the applied loads. For leaking
repairs, a third option, must also be used, to check that the adhesion of the repair is
sufficient.

The equations for each design option are given by the following, where parameter
definitions are presented in [1];

4.1.1 Design based on pipe allowables

This design option is chosen for the situation when the load carrying contribution of
the substrate pipe is considered.

The minimum thickness for the repair (laminate), tmin , is given by the larger of the hoop
and axial load carrying requirements:

 E  E   2F 
t min = Max  D ⋅  s  ⋅ (P − Ps ), D ⋅  s  ⋅  − Ps 
 2 s 2s  Ea 2
 Ec    ðD 

4
4.1.2 Design based on composite allowable strains

This design option is chosen for the situation when the load carrying contribution of
the substrate pipe is ignored.

The minimum thickness for the repair (laminate), tmin , is given by the larger of the hoop
and axial load carrying requirements:

1  PD 1 F õ  1  F 1 PD õ  
t min = Max   − ,  − 
 åc  2 E c ð D E c  åc  ð D E a 2 E c  

4.1.3 Design based on leaking pipes

For leaking pipes, in addition to either design option 4.1.1 or 4.1.2, an analysis of the
interfacial delamination resistance (or interracial fracture toughness) of the repair system
is required. The minimum repair thickness, tmin, is related to the design pressure, P, by;

 
 
 ã 
P= f  
 (1 − õ )  3 d 4 + 1 d  + 3
2
2
d
 E  512t min3
ð  64Gtmin 

The design of repair thickness for a leaking defect or hole is generally dominated by the
delamination failure of the repair, rather than the requirement of carrying the excess
stresses caused by the stress concentration effect of the leaking defect.

4.2 Tank and Pressure Vessel design

Repairs to tank and pressure vessel components are conceptually designed in the same
manner as for pipework.

The first step is to calculate the minimum wall thickness of the repair for the equivalent
pipe section, i.e. same diameter and wall thickness, t min,straightpipe. The next step is to
calculate repair thickness increase factors for;

• Available overlap length (less than the design overlap length), fth,overlap
• Stress intensity factor corresponding to the component of the tanks or vessel,
fth,stress

The repair thickness for the tank or vessel component is given by the product of the
repair thickness increase factors times the repair thickness for the equivalent straight pipe
section, i.e.;

t min, component = t min, straightpipe f th, stress f th ,overlap

5
The above formula for the repair thickness should be calculated for both hoop and axial
directions with the larger of the 2 results being set to the minimum repair thickness.

4.2.1 Overlap lengths – repair thickness increase factors

For pipework the design overlap (axial extent) length of the repair, Ldesign, is given by,
[1];

Ldesign = 2 Di t i

where Di is the diameter and ti the wall thickness of the pipe.

For a cylindrical tank (main body only), the design overlap length (in any direction),
Ldesign, is given by;

Ldesign = 2 Di t i

where Di is the diameter and ti the wall thickness of the cylinder.

For a spherical tank or the end dome of a cylindrical tank, the design overlap length (in
any direction), Ldesign , is given by;

Ldesign = Di t i

where Di is the diameter and ti the wall thickness of the sphere.

For an available overlap length of the repair less than the design overlap length, Ldesign,
the repair thickness increase factor is derived based on the stress decay within the vessel.

Note, if sufficient overlap length is available then fth,overlap is unity.

The thickness increase factor for limited available overlap length is given by;

2/3 2/3
 L   2 Di t i 
f th ,overlay =  design  = 
 Lavailable 
 Lavailable   

4.2.2 Cylindrical tank or vessel components – repair thickness increase factors

Repair increase factors are derived in the following sections for cylindrical tank and
vessel components.

Parameter definitions;

• Diameter (main), Di (mm)

• Diameter, dome minor axis, Do
• Wall thickness (main), ti (mm)
• Diameter (branch), Db (mm)

6
 • Wall thickness (branch), tb (mm)
• Pressure, P (N/mm2)
• Axial moment, Ma (Nmm)
• Hoop moment, Mh (Nmm)
• Thrust, Q (N)
• Length of cylinder, L (mm)
• Axial length of attachment, 2Ca (mm)
• Hoop length of attachment, 2Ch (mm)

4.2.2.1 End dome, main body connection (analysis based on Timoshenko [5])

Repair thickness increase factors in both hoop and axial directions to account for the
stress intensity caused by the connection of the end dome to the cylinder tank body are
given by;

Di2
Hoop thickness increase factor; f th ,h = 1 + 0.032
Do2
Di2
Axial thickness increase factor; f th ,a = 1 + 0.293
Do2

4.2.2.2 Supports/saddles/rigid attachments (analysis based on BS 5500 [4])

Repair thickness increase factors in both hoop and axial directions to account for the
stress intensity caused by rigid attachments to the cylinder tank body are given by as a
function of applied load type;

Thrust loading

Q 2
Hoop thickness increase factor; f th ,h = 1 + (K 3 + K 4 )
P Di t i
Q 4
Axial thickness increase factor; f th ,a = 1+ ( K1 + K 2 )
P Di t i

Axial moment loading

M a 1.5
Hoop thickness increase factor; f th ,h = 1 + (K 3 + K 4 )
PCa Di t i
M 3
Axial thickness increase factor; f th ,a = 1+ a ( K1 + K 2 )
PCa Di t i

Hoop moment loading

7
 M h 1.5
Hoop thickness increase factor; f th ,h = 1 + (K 3 + K 4 )
PCh Di t i
M 3
Axial thickness increase factor; f th ,a = 1+ h (K 1 + K 2 )
PCh Di t i

Approximation: If the thrust or moment load is present but unknown then an

approximation can be made of these loads by equating the thrust (or moment)
load to an equivalent pressure load through;

Q ð (0.85 Da ) 2 2 2
= = Da
P 4 3

where Da = 2 C a C h . Using this approximation implies that the repair thickness

increase factors in both hoop and axial directions for rigid attachments to
cylindrical tanks or vessels are given by;

4Da2
Hoop thickness increase factor; f th ,h = 1 + (K + K 4 )
3Di t i 3
8 Da2
Axial thickness increase factor; f th ,a = 1 + (K + K 2 )
3Di t i 1

4.2.2.3 Tees/nozzles (analysis based on ISO 14692 – Part 3 [6])

For tees and nozzles conservative assumptions are made for the applied moments and
thrusts acting as although they will be present they will be difficult to quantify. The
conservative assumptions link the applied thrusts and moments to the internal pressure
as described previously. This explains why only geometry terms appear in the following
formulae for the repair thickness increase factors in both hoop and axial directions.

ó av, hoop 1.4 ð Db2

Hoop thickness increase factor; f th ,h = = 0. 25 + (K + K4 )
ó h ,p ët 2 Di t i 3

ó av ,axial D2
Axial thickness increase factor; f th ,a = = 1 + ð b ( K1 + K 2 )
ó a, p Di t i

In the above formulae the following definitions are used;

2
t   Di 
ët = 2 b   
 Db   tt 

(
K1 = −0.092Cal−0 .15Cos 0.45Crt − 0.2Cha − 0.5 − 2Cal2 )
( 0.6
K 2 = 1.44 1 − 0.2Cha )
Cos(0.65 Log (Crt ) )(− Log (Cal ) )0.1

8
  Log (Crt ) − Cal 
K 3 = −0.22Cos  
 2 

( )  Log ( Crt ) 
K 4 = 1.8 1 − 0.4Cha 0. 5 Cos
2
 (− Log (Cal ) )
0 .3

 
2
C D C  2Ca
Cha = h, C rt = 128 i  a  , C al =
Ca t t  Di  L

4.2.3 Spherical tanks and vessels

Repair increase factors are derived in the following sections for spherical tank and vessel
components.

Parameter definitions;

• Diameter (main), Di (mm)

• Wall thickness (main), ti (mm)
• Diameter (branch), Db (mm)
• Wall thickness (branch), tb (mm)
• Pressure, P (N/mm2)
• Moment, M (Nmm)
• Thrust, Q (N)
• Diameter of attachment, Da (mm)

4.2.3.1 Supports/saddles/rigid attachments (analysis based on BS 5500 [4])

Repair thickness increase factors in both hoop and axial directions to account for the
stress intensity caused by rigid attachments to the spherical tank body are given by as a
function of applied load type;

Thrust loading

Q 4
Hoop thickness increase factor; f th ,h = 1 + (K 3 + K 4 )
P Di t i
Q 4
Axial thickness increase factor; f th ,a = 1+ ( K1 + K 2 )
P Di t i

Moment loading

1.4M 4
Hoop thickness increase factor; f th ,h = 1 + (K + K 4 )
P ( Di t i )3 / 2 3
1.4M 4
Axial thickness increase factor; f th ,a =1+ (K + K 2 )
P ( Di t i )3 / 2 1

9
 Approximation: If the thrust or moment load is present but unknown then an
approximation can be made of these loads by equating the thrust (or moment)
load to an equivalent pressure load through;

Q ðDa2
=
P 4

Using this approximation implies that the repair thickness increase factors in both
hoop and axial directions for rigid attachments to spherical tanks or vessels are
given by;
ðDa2
Hoop thickness increase factor; f th ,h = 1 + (K + K 4 )
Di t i 3
ðDa2
Axial thickness increase factor; f th ,a = 1+ (K + K 2 )
Di t i 1

4.2.3.2 Tees/nozzles (analysis based on BS 5500 [4])

For tees and nozzles conservative assumptions are made for the applied moments and
thrusts acting as although they will act they will be difficult to quantify. The
conservative assumptions link to applied thrusts and moments to the internal pressure as
described previously. This explains why only geometry terms appear in the formulae for
the repair thickness increase factors.

Note: in the following formula the repair thickness increase factor is independent on
direction.

Pressure loading

Thickness increase factor f th = 2

(
1 + 0.75 ñ − 0.95 t r )
0 .88

t r0 .31

Moment loading

Thickness increase factor ( )

f th = 3.8 1 − 0.43t r0. 3 sin( ñ)
Db
2Di t t

Thrust loading

0.2  Db
Thickness increase factor ( ) 
f th = 3.8 1 − 0.43t r0 .3  1 − 0. 42 
 ñ  2 Di t t

10
 Note: For a combined pressure plus for example moment load the total repair
thickness increase factor will be the sum of the individual factors for the individual
loads.

In the above formulae the following definitions are used;

1.287 Da
s=
Diti

Db t br
ñ= , tr =
2 Di t i ti

(
K1 = 1.2 Exp − 2.4s 0. 35 )
(
K 2 = 4.86 Exp − 2.2 s 0 .5 )
(
K 3 = 0.38 Exp − 2.3s 0. 25 )
(
K 4 = 1.2 Exp − 2.2 s 0 .5 )
4.3 Verification of design rules

The design formulae presented in section 4.2 are currently being verified through finite
element stress analysis. Subsequent to this verification, spool tests will be performed on
actual vessel repairs, including both short burst and medium term survival tests. Repairs
to both the non-leaking and the leaking situation will be considered.

4.3.1 Cylindrical vessel

The following figure displays the

finite element mesh used for the
verification of the design rules for a
cylindrical vessel.

The dimensions of the vessel and

attachments are as follows:

Diameter (vessel), Di = 2 m
Diameter (branch), Db = 200 mm
Wall thickness, ti = 10 mm
Internal pressure, P = 1 MPa

11
To check that the mesh was correctly
defined the average stress within the wall
of the vessel was checked against the
membrane stress. The membrane stress is
given by;

PDi Average stress

ó= = 100 MPa .
2t i
100 MPa
The figure plots the average stress within
the vessel confirming the membrane
stress calculation.

Maximum stress

142 MPa
The first verification example is the
calculation of the stress intensification at
the rigid attachment. From the FE
analysis the maximum stress intensity or
repair thickness increase factor (actual
stress divided by the membrane stress) is
142/100 = 1.42. The design formula
calculation (4.2.2.2) predicts a repair
thickness increase factor of 1.42.

Maximum stress

256 MPa
The second verification example is the
calculation of the stress intensification
at the nozzle attachment. From the FE
analysis the maximum stress intensity or
repair thickness increase factor (actual
stress divided by the membrane stress) is
256/100 = 2.56. The design formula
calculation (4.2.2.3) predicts a repair
thickness increase factor of 2.4.

12
4.3.2 Spherical vessel

The following figure displays the finite

element mesh used for the verification of the
design rule for a spherical vessel.

The dimensions of the vessel and

attachments are as follows:

Diameter (vessel), Di = 2 m
Diameter (branch), Db = 200 mm
Wall thickness, ti = 10 mm
Internal pressure, P = 1 MPa

To check that the mesh was

correctly defined the average stress
within the wall of the vessel was Average stress
checked against the membrane
stress. The membrane stress is given 50 MPa
by;

PDi
ó= = 50 MPa .
4t i
The figure plots the average stress
within the vessel confirming the
membrane stress calculation.

Maximum stress

The first verification example is the 81.3 MPa

calculation of the stress intensification
at the rigid attachment. From the FE
analysis the maximum stress intensity
or repair thickness increase factor
(actual stress divided by the
membrane stress) is 81.3/50 = 1.63.
The design formula calculation
(4.2.3.1) predicts a repair thickness
increase factor of 2.04

13
 Maximum stress
The second verification example is
the calculation of the stress 92.3 MPa
intensification at the nozzle
attachment. From the FE analysis
the maximum stress intensity or
repair thickness increase factor
(actual stress divided by the
membrane stress) is 92.3/50 =
1.85. The design formula
calculation (4.2.3.2) predicts a
repair thickness increase factor of
2.11

The design formulae presented in section 4.2 at best can only be considered empirical in
their derivation. The comparison with FE predictions is surprisingly good confirming
the design approach adopted for the repair of tanks and vessels using composite
overwraps.

5. Installation

This is the most critical step in any repair application.

Each repair product has its own installation requirements. The documentation provides
guidance on what should be included within an installation manual. The fundamental
issue is that site installation should mirror those processes that were applied in the
preparation of samples for qualification testing, particularly surface preparation.

On-site application is considered in the installation document for pipework, [2], but it is
anticipated that a significant number of tanks and vessel repairs will be manufactured
on-site. This aspect of on-site manufacture will be added to the existing document.

6. Inspection

The inspection document is written as recommended guidance as opposed to

specification form in recognition that this area is still in development. There are three
inspection challenges for the repair to tanks and vessels:

• Inspection of the repair laminate;

• Inspection of the interface between the repair and substrate;
• Inspection of the underlying pipe.

Of these, the third is of most concern in, e.g. when the tank or vessel is subject to
internal corrosion.

14
The inspection challenge for tanks and vessels is not significantly different to that for
pipework. The current recommendation, based on repaired pipework, on the most
appropriate inspection technique for the following types of defects is as follows;

• General wall loss of the tank or vessel (e.g. through internal corrosion) – inspect
using electromagnetic techniques e.g. Pulsed eddy current or saturated low
frequency eddy current
• Pin hole leaks or pitting corrosion (e.g. through localised corrosion at a weld) –
inspect using ultrasonics
• Delamination of the composite laminate (e.g. through debonding) – inspect
using laser shearography

Further details on these inspection issues are presented in reference [3].

7. Summary

This article has summarised progress to date in the development a set of guidelines
covering qualification, design, installation and inspection for the repair of tanks and
pressure vessels using composite overwraps.

The benefits of the work when complete will be that it provides a framework that
allows operators to select the composite repair option with confidence. In addition, the
establishment of an accepted approach to material qualification gives suppliers a firm
basis on which to invest in material testing and product development programmes.
Together these points represent the necessary next steps in taking composite repair
products forward so that they can realise their potential in offering a solution to the
repair of tanks and vessels.

8. References

1. AEAT - 57711, Design of Composite Repairs for Pipework, December 2002

2. AEAT - 57756, Installation Procedures for Composite Repairs, December 2002.
3. AEAT - 75394, NDT Methods for Composite Repairs, December 2002.
4. BS 5500 – Unfired fusion welded pressure vessels.
5. Theory of plates and shells, S. Timoshenko and S Woinowsky-Krieger, McGraw-
Hill 1959.
6. ISO 14692 – Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – Glass Re-inforced Plastics
(GRP) piping

Acknowledgements
The support and guidance of the Composite Repair Workgroup is gratefully
acknowledged. The Workgroup members consist of users (Amerada Hess, BG-
Hydrocarbon Resources Limited, BP, Petrobras, Saudi Aramco, Shell and Statoil) and
material suppliers (Clockspring, Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd, Industrial
Maintenance Group and Walker Technical Resources).

15