15536993625 hatj@tshangao.com.cn
Hangao Inspection Office Building, Lubei District, Tangshan, Hebei, 063000

Common Defects, Failure Mechanisms and Action Boundaries in Pressure Vessel Inspection

Technical Insight

Back to News

Pressure vessel risk is not limited to wall thinning. This article draws on HSE information on plant failure modes and welding failure studies to summarize what periodic inspections should pay attention to.

HSE material on plant design and failure modes shows that pressure vessels face much more than simple corrosion loss. Important deterioration and failure mechanisms include overpressure, overheating, mechanical and thermal fatigue, brittle fracture, creep and fabrication-related problems. A periodic inspection strategy that focuses only on thickness loss can therefore miss critical risks.

HSE’s research into historic welding failures also shows that weld defects and management weaknesses often appear together. Frequently observed issues include crack-like flaws, volumetric flaws, undersized weld geometry, inadequate supervision and insufficient inspection coverage. In practice, vessel inspection should combine visual review, record review, comparison with earlier NDT data and focused re-examination of critical weld regions.

Once a defect is found, the correct action boundary cannot be reduced to “keep running if possible.” The decision should consider defect type, size, location, process fluid, operating temperature and the remaining life assessment. For low-temperature service, cyclic loading or corrosive duty, the response threshold should be more conservative.

Key Points

  • Pressure vessel risk includes fatigue, brittle fracture, creep and weld quality issues.
  • Weld defects and management weaknesses often coexist and should be reviewed together.
  • Disposition decisions should be based on defect type, duty and remaining life, not convenience.

References