Posted by Mark Rand on 24/01/2021 20:23:53:
…
As to the original post. I also suspect that the safety valve and the pressure switch failed, rather than the tank failing. Metallurgical examination would be required to show how it could have failed that way at normal operating pressure even with a 20% loss of wall thickness.
Agreed a metallurgical exam is needed to prove it, but the way fatigue cracks propagate is well known.

Looking at a cross-section through the tank, it can be seen once started a fatigue crack crowbars itself into the metal every time the tank flexes. Expansion due to pressure opens the crack and contraction due to emptying closes it. Both actions concentrate force at the point. At first the crack gets deeper very slowly, but, as the crowbar gets longer, the rate of growth accelerates. When the crack is deep enough, the metal can't resist the pressure and tears like a sheet of paper along the flaw. Nothing obvious until the tank rips open with a bang.
Fatigue cracks can be started with with a ding, scratch, or corrosion. When an item is subject to fatigue cracking, the best way to avoid catastrophic failure is to take the item out of service at the end of it's design life, i.e before a slow moving crack has had enough time to become dangerously deep.
Highly stressed components like aircraft wheel struts are often polished to increase their strength by removing the tiny surface imperfections that act as stress raisers. It's not just for show!
Dave