Paper No.

FA35
Failure of Foundation bolts during construction in Refinery - A case study
*Y Kiran Kumar, *Sudarshan Kumar. *D V Meshram and *Asitava Ghosh
*Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Paradip Refinery Project, Paradip, India Presenting author - Email kumarky@indianoil.in

Abstract Foundation bolts are the key elements in the foundation of any equipment Installation. In a coastal refinery, where the wind velocities considered for structural as well as equipment design are much complex than the inland refineries; quality of the bolts is utmost important. Beside wind velocity coastal refinery are also prone to cyclone and tsunami also. This paper discusses a case study of bolt failure in the foundation of a tall process column during template removal during the project stage. .Total 04 nos. of bolts has fractured during template removal from the foundation before equipment erection. One bolt had broken during the erection of the column. Bolts have sheared off from the unthreaded portion with an appearance of brittle fracture. Extensive chemical and mechanical testings were done on failed bolts and also on other bolts from the same lot. As the bolts were fractured prior to functioning raised doubt on the manufacture process adopted at Worksop. And hence the factors which lead to the unexpected failure of these bolts were traced back to the manufacturing procedures used. The effect of different element composition in the bolts and effect of different procedures involve in manufacturing process including heat treatment were thoroughly analysed by Evaluating the specific impact on material properties as desired in the manufacturing code. Corrective actions were taken for the bolts which have already procured for the intended properties and a new system has been established so that procured bolts in a systematic manner withstand the challenging conditions in coastal area. Keywords: Bolts, shear, foundation

INTRODUCTION
Foundation base is the crucial component of any installation. Without a healthy foundation, a structure cannot withstand loads of various magnitudes, types and directions. On a broader level, design of foundation would depend on the type of soil, type of structure, different types of loads and environmental effect expected. While designing foundation system, foundation along with Structure standing on foundation Constitutes a system which is expected to withstand various loads such as dead loads, live loads, horizontal loads developed due to wind, seismic by the nature and thermal behaviour of materials etc. Correct assessment of such various loads during the design stage with safety factors, required to consider the entire factor such as geographical, geological case and different structural surrounding is crucial to ensure long term structural stability. In oil refineries, for process columns, foundation system design is generally reinforced concrete foundation with a spread footing or piling with the configuration of the pedestal and footing being circular, rectangular or octagonal. Various loads acting on foundations are dead loads due to self weight of structure and live load due to short time load or liquid handling load etc. horizontal loads and overturning moment, loads due to thermal expansion etc. Anchor bolts are required in foundation to resist the uplift from the overturning moment, and fix the structure in a vertical position. Primary purpose for providing anchor bolt is to take tensile load, however shear load carrying capacity is also taken in consideration to increase the safety factor in case friction cannot resist the shear load or other methods like shear keys are not used to take the shear load. Generally in process industry, the

columns, foundation is designed for some amount of shear load on anchor bolts but in case of coastal locations where horizontal loads due to wind velocities are very high, shears loads and tensile loads on bolts are also expected to be higher at coastal refinery. Anchor bolt with correct mechanical, chemical and dimensional properties to meet a particular design case is very much crucial for steady foundation design. Correct material specification, quality assurance procedures during manufacturing and heat treatment operations and judicious sampling method for testing are the major factor to ensure right quality bolts. Selection of Anchor bolts for a particular design case is based on the bolt meeting the requirements of the mentioned specification or code specified in design data sheets. Faulty design or any quality compromises on bolts may lead to catastrophic failure with safety, serious environmental and cost implications. FAILURE INCIDENT: 04 nos. Of IS1367 grade 8.8 anchor bolts of 64 mm diameter and length 2300 mm failed during template removal (fig (schematic) 3) from the rectangular pedestal foundation. All the 4 nos. of failed bolts were found adjacent to each other. At nearby another rectangular pedestal foundation (fig 1 and fig 2) 01 nos. of same IS1367 grade 8.8 installed anchor bolts failed during erection process of column. There are 32 nos. of foundation bolts in each of the foundation. All the fractured bolts were supplied by the same manufacturer. Bolts were manufactured from bars by cutting, threading followed by heat treatment

Figure 1: Rectangular pedestal column foundation.

Figure 2: Schematic representation of template removal

ANCHOR BOLT SPECIFICATIONS: Used anchor bolt material were specified as grade 4.8/8.8 as per IS 1367 or S275 as per BS EN10025. Anchor bolts of type (F) as shown in fig. 4 were (specified) of dia 64 mm and 2300 mm long. For such foundations, a template (replica of crossarm / headframe) is required to place the bolts and hold them rigidly in place prior to casting the concrete. For 64 mm dia and 2300 mm length bolt, specified projection P is 660 mm, washer plate length B is 200mm, and washer plate to top of concrete distance E is 1500 mm (as shown in Fig. 4 below). The mechanical and chemical properties requirement according to IS 1367, part 3, 2002 are as follows: Mechanical Requirements: Yield strength MPa 620 (nom.) Chemical requirements: C Elements S P B Tem perin g temp . C (min ) Tensile strength MPa 800(min) % Elongation % 12(min) Hardness values HRC 23 - 34

Carbon steels with additives (e.g. B, Cr or Mn) quenched and tempered Carbon steel quenched and tempered

0.150.40

0.03 5 Max.

0.03 5 Max. 0.00 3 Max. 425

0.250.55

0.03 5 Max.

0.03 5 Max.

Figure 3: Anchor bolt type F

DISCUSSION: Failure of bolt during template removal and column erection drew suspicion about quality of bolt material. Subsequently failed sample from failed bolts and few fresh samples from the same lot were tested for mechanical and chemical properties. Vendors shop was also visited to inspect the quality of system adopted for the manufacturing of bolts. Extensive fractography study, EDAX and inclusion profiling along with rating studies were carried out. Subject technical specification code for anchor bolts were analysed in detail and comparisons drawn with other relevant International code.

Figure 4: Fracture initiation site (mirror and mist zone)

Observations: Brittle fracture without gross plastic deformation observed on the fractured surface during the visual and microscopically examines. The fracture surface appeared bright throughout fracture surface except with a slight dull region near fracture initiation point closer to the surface when visually seen under normal illumination. Mechanical damage near the bolt surface indicating Initiation of crack and the Propagation direction could be understood by visually seen fractured surface and was corroborated by image seen at 14X.

Figure 5: Fracture surface of bolt (river pattern)

Type of loading which has contributed to failure is Shear load, tensile load and Oblique Load: Also known as a combination load, during removal of template and impact sheared load in the case of column erection process would be expected to be very low. Suspicion arose for bolt being inherently very brittle and failure due to impact shear load. Macroscopic details of fracture surface are shown in figure no. 5 with a river pattern. Mechanical tests revealed failed bolt samples had extremely low elongation and impact value with no yielding. Mechanical tests on fresh bolts also indicated lower impact toughness with Charpy Vnotch values. Tensile strength and yield strength were on higher side, while percentage elongation was very below against required levels. Hardness profile checking across the diameter revealed maximum surface hardness of 339 HVN. Mechanical testing on fresh bolts also failed in meeting mechanical property requirement as per material specification requirement. Mechanical testing results of failed and fresh bolts are given below in the table-1 and table 2 respectively. Bolt Size: 64mm

Bolt Details Failed bolt A Failed bolt B Failed bolt E Failed bolt C

Lab Lab1

Type of specime n Eccentric 20 mm dia Concentr ic 20 mm dia NA

YS MPa 933 914 Not achieve d NA

TS MPa 1039 1016 830

% Elong ation 10.49 5 1.6

Hardness Avg = 31HRC Avg = 31HRC Avg = 22.5HRC Surface = 324 Core = 284 (in Vickers)

Impact Values Not done Not done Avg 6J, V-notch Average 10.5J, Vnotch

Lab2 Lab3

NA

NA

Table 1: Mechanical test results of failed bolts

Bolt details

Lab

Type of specime n Eccentric 20 mm dia Concentr ic 20 mm dia Eccentric 16 mm dia Eccentric 16 mm dia Eccentric 16 mm dia

YS MPa

TS MPa

Fresh bolt D

782

907

% Elon gatio n 10

Hardness

Impact Values

Lab1

Fresh bolt I Fresh bolt F Fresh bolt G Fresh bolt H

833

995

Lab2

12.3 8 15.6 2 14.1

Avg. surface= 314.67 HVN, Avg. core = 274 HVN Avg. = 277BHN

44 J, U-notch

622

858

Avg.= 248 BHN

Lab4

690

833

Avg. = 18HRC

Avg 13.3J, V-notch Avg 11.3J, V-notch Avg 12J, V-notch Avg 9.3J, V-notch

803

968

13.7 5

Avg hardness= 277 BHN

Table 2: Mechanical test results of fresh bolts

Ductility is measured by percent elongation over a given gage length or percent reduction of crosssectional area. Lower elongation values during mechanical testing on eccentric specimen indicate extremely poor ductility of bolts Impact test results also indicate Charpy V-notch values to be extremely low indicating inherent brittleness of material. Chemical tests revealed higher contents of sulphur and phosphorous. Spark optical emission spectroscopy of one of the bolts revealed sulphur content as high as 0.166 against specified limit of 0.035 for one failed bolt. Chemical test results are given in table-3. More than required percentage of sulphur and phosphorous contents has drawn suspicion about lack of quality surveillance during raw material sourcing. This may have been due to segregation of impurities and inherent embrittlement due to improper heat treatment. Bolt Size: 64mm

Bolt Failed bolt A Failed bolt B Failed bolt C

Lab

Test Method

Lab-1 Lab-3

Spectro Spectro

C % 0.395 0.384 0.3613

S % 0.054 0.62 0.1661

P % 0.043 0.054 0.0488

Cr % 1.01 1.25 1.16

Table 3: Chemical analysis test results of failed bolts

Bolt Fresh bolt D Fresh bolt F Fresh bolt G Fresh bolt H

Lab Lab-1 Lab-4

Test Method Spectro Spectro

C % 0.402 0.3949 0.3957 0.3955

S % 0.0440 0.0480 0.0489 0.0546

P % 0.050 0.0247 0.0231 0.0485

Cr % 1.03 0.9907 0.9780 0.9611

Table 4: Chemical analysis test results of fresh bolts

Inspection Visit to manufacturing shop of supplier revealed severs lack of quality controls. Raw material used for the manufacturing of bolt could not be traced. Heat nos. traceability of blooms from which bars were made for making bolts couldnt be found. Final testing on bolts were done size wise and not heat number wise. Lack of traceability of heat no. Make difficult to maintain quality of bolts. Furnace thermocouples and hardness tester both were not calibrated. Metallography of bolts disclosed non uniform tempered martensitic structure with troostite and some amount of retained austenite (figure-6).

Figure 6: Tempered martensite (needle assembly region), retained austenite (shining white region) and troostite (or carbide) phase (dark regions)

When observing features of fracture surface on scanning electron microscope, it could be assessed that the surface had primarily features of cleavage fracture (Fig.8) with few locations showing features of quasi cleavage (Fig.9). Segregated non-metallic inclusions particles could be seen in different zones (Fig. 10). Non-metallic inclusions were also found entrained in grain boundaries (Fig. 11).

Fig 9: Segregated zone of inclusion and ductile fracture

Figure 10: Inclusions at grain boundaries (river pattern)

EDAX analysis was carried out on SEM. Clusters of silica inclusion was seen (fig 11) and confirmed by EDAX (Fig 12 and graph 1). Manganese sulphide inclusions were also confirmed by EDAX.(Fig 13)

Fig 11- Clusters of silica inclusions in mist zone

GRAPH 1: EDAX Results of figure 12

Fig 12- Clusters of silica inclusions confirmed by EDAX

Graph 2: EDAX results of figure 13

Fig 13: EDAX analysis showing MnS inclusions

Inclusion rating study carried out in accordance with standard procedure ASTM E45 revealed heavy slag stringers associated with severe sulphide and silicate inclusion in the specimen. Inclusions of type-2 were harmful inclusions (Fig: 15) and were beyond the limit of standard chart as per ASTM E-45 and IS: 4163.

Figure 14: Elongated stringer type Inclusions on longitudinal plane (type 2)

ANALYSIS: Bars used for making bolts were not confirming to BS-970 (part-1) 1983 Grade 709M40 steel. The chemical composition specification is given below: C Elements % BS 970(part 1)-1983 gr. 0.36-0.44 709M40 Bars used for making 0.3778 bolts S % 0.040 Max. 0.0509 P % 0.035 Max. 0.0577 Cr % 0.90-1.20 0.9859

Chemical specification requirements of bolts in accordance with IS 1367 Grade 8.8 mentions material to be supplied either in low carbon steel form or steel with minor additives for possibly achieving core hardenability. However, extent of alloying is not clear from the specification. Bolts were manufactured in accordance with IS 1367, 1991 edition instead of latest requirement edition 2002. IS1367-1991 edition mentions chemical test waiver in case mechanical tests pass. This may have resulted in bolts being passed purely on the basis of mechanical tests (though the tests were carried out on undersized samples not meeting code requirements of max 25% reduction in diameter) even when chemical tests were not meeting code requirements. Higher percentage of impurities in the form of segregated and elongated stringer type manganese sulphide inclusions coupled with high intrinsic hardness of bolts due to alloying additions might have resulted in brittle fracture of such high strength bolts. Anisotropy developed due to large no. of elongated inclusions may have resulted in load bearing capacity being poor in the transverse direction. This puts emphasis on the importance of chemistry control and heat treatment. Ensuring lower impurities in the raw material, inclusion shape control and homogenization to avoid segregation can result in lower and lesser harmful inclusions. Strict adherence to heat treatment time is must be given to obtain desired microstructure. Sufficient soaking time in austenitic range to completely form austenite, ensuring optimum cooling rate during quenching operation is must. Temper embrittlement can be prevented by proper selection of tempering temperature, time and cooling rate for alloy steel. Improper microstructure of the bolts can be explained by the unscrupulous practices at the vendor shop. Material certificates for bars used to manufactured bolts could not be traced. Different heat no. bars were possible used to manufacture particular type of bolts. This fact is further established by the test results of fresh bolts, where chemical composition meets the code requirement, code (refer table-1). Effect of segregation could also be a factor for difference in results of chemical analysis. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: 1. Dismantling of both the process column foundations by table top cutting and new foundation top constructed. 2. All the bolts in the foundation were replaced with new bolts. 3. Inspection surveillance and testing of fresh bolts increased to ascertain quality of the bolts as per the codes.

CONCLUSIONS: Main cause of failure can be attributed to presence of segregated and large stringer type inclusions along the longitudinal direction which has resulted in reduced ductility and impact toughness of bolts along the transverse direction. Bolts have plausibly failed due to impact load or static shear load applied across the transverse direction during template removal. The inherent brittle matrix has further added to the lower impact strength. Certain limitations in the codes could also be found out in course of failure analysis IS1367 requires update in line with the international codes: PROPERTY General IS 1367 ASTM Codes Type of steel making clearly mentioned. Composition of all alloying elements is clearly mentioned. Both minimum and maximum temperatures are mentioned. 0.5 dia specimens can be taken at a distance from the axis.

Type of steelmaking process not specifically mentioned. For grade 8.8 bolts alloy addition can be done to meet the mechanical Chemical properties. Level of alloying not Composition mentioned. Minimum tempering temperature of Heat treatment 425C specified for carbon steel grade 8.8 steel. When machining the test piece, the reduction of the shank diameter of the sample preparation for heat treated bolts and screws with tensile testing D>16 mm shall not exceed the 25% of the original diameter of the test piece.

Tempered embrittlement of martensite is typical for such kind of materials treated in the temperature range of 200-370oC. Negligence in monitoring the heat treatment at the shop and uncalibrated equipment might have resulted in an improper heat treatment leading to irreversible temper martensitic embrittlement of the material. This has to be established by metallography and impact testing. REFERENCES: 1. Mechanical Metallurgy by Dieter, George Ellwood. 2. ASM Handbook Volume 12-Fractography 3. ASM Handbook Volume 9-Metallography and microstructures 4. ASM Handbook Volume 11 -Failure Analysis and prevention 5. Standard concrete notes PDRP4200-8310-SP-1002_REV_F2 PATH FORWARD: 1. Establishing tempered martensitic embrittlement formation by extensive metallographic analysis and impact toughness testing. 2. Establishing austenite grain size for quenched and tempered steel 3. Establishing size of inclusion and where inclusions are heavily segregated. 4. To check for reversible temper embrittlement.