2006 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference July 23-27, 2006 Vancouver B.C.

Canada

PVP2006-ICPVT11-93628
LIFE MANAGEMENT OF MAIN STEAM AND HOT REHEAT PIPING SYSTEMS PART 2
Marvin J. Cohn Aptech Engineering Services, Inc. Sunnyvale, CA 94086

ABSTRACT Since there have been several instances of weldment failures in main steam (MS) and hot reheat (HRH) piping systems, most utilities have developed programs to examine their most critical welds. Many utilities select their MS and HRH critical girth welds for examination by consideration of some combination of the ASME B31.1 Code [1] (Code) highest sustained stresses, highest thermal expansion stresses, terminal point locations, and fitting weldments. This paper suggests the use of an alternative life management methodology to prioritize material damage locations based on realistic stresses and applicable damage mechanisms. This methodology is customized to each piping system, considering applicable affects, such as operating history, measured weldment wall thicknesses, observed support anomalies, actual piping thermal displacements, and more realistic time-dependent multiaxial stresses. The high energy piping life consumption (HEPLC) methodology for MS and HRH critical girth welds may be considered as a rational approach to determine critical weldment locations for examinations and to determine appropriate reexamination intervals as a risk-based evaluation technique. The HEPLC methodology has been implemented over the past 15 years to provide more realistic estimates of actual displacements, stresses, and material damage based on the evaluation of field conditions. This HEPLC methodology can be described as having three basic phases: data collection, evaluation, and recommendations. The data collection phase includes obtaining design and post construction piping and supports information. The effects of current piping loads and anomalies are evaluated for potential creep/fatigue damage at the most critical weldments. The top ranked weldments of the HEPLC study are than selected as the highest priority examination locations. The author has completed many HEPLC studies of MS and HRH piping systems. The previous paper (Part 1) provided examples of data collection results and

documentation of observed piping system anomalies. This paper will provide examples of evaluation results and recommendations, including a few case histories that have correctly ranked and predicted locations of significant creep/fatigue damage. INTRODUCTION Power plant piping operated at high pressures and high temperatures is typically described as high energy piping (HEP). The MS and HRH piping systems are included in this category. These piping systems have a finite practical operating life because of the continual accumulation of creep and fatigue damage. These two damage mechanisms may also combine synergistically (creep/fatigue interaction) to reduce the operating life well below life predictions using creep or fatigue life calculations alone. While the probabilities of these failures are low, the major concerns in older power stations include the potential for catastrophic failure, power plant personnel safety, and the potential for long-term outages. The conventional approach to choose critical girth welds in MS and HRH piping systems includes some combination of the highest Code sustained load and thermal expansion stresses, terminal points, and fitting weldments subject to stress intensification [2-6]. This conventional methodology has not substantially changed over the past 20 years. A comparison of the conventional methodology results to the highest ranked HEPLC locations was discussed by Cohn [7]. In a review of 18 MS and HRH piping systems, the conventional approach resulted in the selection of 6 to 20 critical welds for each piping system. However, in almost every case, at least one of the top three ranked HEPLC locations was not captured by the conventional approach. Therefore, the HEPLC methodology results in winnowing the examination locations down to those with the highest potential for having creep/fatigue damage. A comparison of the Code results to observed creep/fatigue damage concluded that there is poor correlation between Code high stress locations and

Copyright 2006 by ASME

observed material damage [8, 9]. This poor correlation is at least partly due to the conventional approach lacking the following considerations: Actual pipe and weldment thicknesses significantly different than specified Constant support hangers with nonlinear loading Variable spring hangers loaded significantly different than specified Improperly functioning hangers (e.g., topped-out or bottomed-out) [8] Code stresses (sustained load and thermal expansion stress range) that do not include the hoop stress Multiaxial operating stresses Time-dependent creep stress relaxation (shakedown) Weldment material properties and creep damage rates Cumulative time-dependent creep/fatigue life consumption evaluations To ensure the highest reliability of a piping system, the possibility of a significant fabrication discontinuity should be evaluated by a 100-percent one-time examination of all weldments. This examination could be performed in a phased approach during several scheduled overhauls. This approach ensures that no fabrication discontinuity is more serious than the predicted service-related damage. Subsequently, the HEPLC is used to identify critical locations for lead-the-fleet service-related material damage. METHODOLOGY The author has found that piping system displacements in MS and HRH piping systems can be significantly different than the original design predictions. Actual displacements can also be influenced by additional supports, missing supports, malfunctioning supports, and pipe interferences. All of these post construction anomalies should be identified by the piping system hot and cold walkdowns and considered in an as-found piping system stress analysis. Data collection and documentation of post construction anomalies are discussed in the Part 1 paper. The evaluation of the as-found data is discussed in this paper. An as-designed piping stress analysis should be performed to evaluate compliance to the ASME B31.1 Code. This analysis is based on the specified design data (Table 1 in the Part 1 paper) and may not accurately represent the field conditions. Evaluation of hot and cold walkdown results frequently reveals that the pipe at hanger locations can displace significantly different than predicted by the design stress analysis. This may be due to hanger malfunctions (non-ideal loading), inaccurate modeling of elbow stiffness, piping interferences, and incorrect thermal displacement assumptions at the terminal locations. Field measurements of pipe thicknesses may significantly change the dead weight displacements and stresses. Consequently,

an as-found piping stress analysis should be performed to simulate field conditions and obtain more accurate pipe stresses due to identified anomalies. For example, a comparison of the predicted pipe displacements at support locations to observed field displacements was performed for a main steam (MS) piping system. The MS piping system isometric, from the superheat outlet header (SHOH) to the two turbine connections, is illustrated in Figure 1. There are 15 support locations for this piping system. At each support location, the vertical displacements are illustrated in a piping displacement profile (PDP) diagram. The as-designed PDP, indicating the observed and as-designed piping stress analysis predicted displacements, is illustrated in Figure 2. In this case, several hangers are displacing less than 50% of their expected vertical travel. The as-found PDP, indicating the observed and simulated as-found piping stress displacements, is illustrated in Figure 3. In this case, there is better agreement among the displacements of most of the supports. Future walkdowns and as-found piping stress analyses will be performed to resolve the remaining few discrepancies between the observed and simulated displacements. The HEPLC considers the elastic stress, defined as the multiaxial stress at time equals zero. The long range elastic stress is estimated using the as-found piping stress analysis results for the operating stress (dead weight, pressure, external and thermal loads) in the direction axial to the pipe and the Lam equations [10] for the other two orthogonal directions. The total elastic stress in a weldment is estimated as the combination of the applicable initial base metal stress, residual stress, and weld performance factor. The HEPLC also considers the inelastic stress, defined as the fully relaxed stress (due to creep relaxation). The long range inelastic stress is estimated using the results of the as-found piping analysis sustained load stress analysis in the direction axial to the pipe and the Bailey equations [11] for the other two orthogonal directions. The total inelastic stress in a weldment is estimated as the combination of the applicable fully relaxed base metal stress, residual stress, and weld performance factor after creep relaxation. Relaxation of low alloy ferritic steels is estimated using the Norton equation [12]. Applicable values for the empirically derived coefficients are based on experimental results for the appropriate material and temperature range. This approach to relax the stresses is based on uniaxial testing results. Uniaxial stresses are adjusted to multiaxial stress conditions by using the ASME Code Case N47-32 [13]. Since the HEPLC software was developed in 1995, the Code Case N47-32 was the applicable document at that time.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Once the effective weldment stress is determined as a function of time, cumulative life consumption for each weldment is calculated for the current operating hours. Empirically derived and well characterized stress rupture curves have been determined for the appropriate materials. The Robinson linear life fraction rule [14] is then used to determine the incremental life consumed for the applied stress at each incremental time step. An integrated life consumption value is estimated for each girth weld at its current operating hours. Consequently, critical welds are ranked according to their predicted life consumption due to creep damage. If there are many cold starts for the piping system, an additional set of welds are ranked for possible fatigue damage, considering the as-found thermal expansion multiaxial stresses. Simulation of observed piping displacements and conditions results in more realistic estimates of current stresses. The evaluation of weldment material properties and creep damage rates results in a better ranking of critical weldments and a better estimate of creep/fatigue life consumption. As discussed below, the HEPLC methodology has successfully predicted material creep/fatigue damage in girth welds of three MS piping systems. MAIN STEAM PIPING SYSTEM AT CHOLLA 2 This piping system was evaluated during a Spring 1999 scheduled overhaul [9]. It began commercial operation in 1978 and had accumulated 158,000 operating hours by the end of 1998. This piping system has a design pressure of 2150 psig (14.82 MPa) and typically operates at 1800 psig (12.41 MPa). The design temperature is 1015F (546C) and the effective operating temperature ranges from 995F (535C) to 1002F (539C). There are three pipe sizes, 19-inch (483-mm) outside diameter (OD) by 2.50-inch (63.5-mm) nominal wall thickness (NWT), 15-inch (381 mm) OD by 2.00-inch (50.8-mm) NWT, and 8.63-inch (219-mm) OD by 1.55inch (39.4-mm) NWT. The base metal is specified as ASTM SA335-P22 (seamless pipe) and the weld metal is specified as ASME SFA 5.5 E9018-B3. An isometric of the piping system from the SHOH to the turbine connections is illustrated in Figure 4. Both asdesigned and as-found piping stress analyses were performed for the piping system. Results of both piping systems were in compliance with the ASME B31.1 Code. However, the ranking of stresses between the two stress analyses was substantially different. The top nine locations for the sustained load cases of the as-designed vs. as-found piping stress analyses had no matching node numbers. The HEPLC evaluation indicated that two MS welds were near end of life (Locations A and B in Figure 4). Both welds were uncovered and had significant OD cracks.

The circumferential crack of Weld A (the SHOH nozzle connection) is shown in Figure 5. Four additional welds (Welds C through F in Figure 4, with at least ten years of predicted remaining life) were also selected for examination. Welds C through F and an additional 25 girth welds were examined, with results indicating no significant service-related material damage. At Weld A, the as-designed Code sustained load stress was 3.66 ksi (25.2 MPa), with an allowable stress of 7.62 ksi (52.5 MPa). This node was ranked 29 as a sustained load in the as-designed stress analysis. At Weld A, the HEPLC as-found effective weldment stress (considering malfunctioning supports) at the time of the examination (160,000 hours) was 10.5 ksi (72.4 MPa). The HEPLC methodology indicated this location was the most critical regarding possible creep damage. The combination of low thermal expansion stresses and relatively low thermal cycles indicated that the contribution of fatigue damage was not as important in this piping system. This case study illustrates that a comparison of results from a conventional Code analysis to the HEPLC approach can result in substantially different stresses and model node stress rankings. MAIN STEAM PIPING SYSTEM AT KEEPHILLS 2 This piping system was evaluated during a Spring 1998 overhaul. It began commercial operation in March 1984 and had accumulated approximately 122,000 operating hours through the end of 1997. This piping system has a design pressure of 2500 psig (17.5 MPa) and typically operates at 2400 psig (16.55 MPa). The design temperature is 1005F (541C) and the effective operating temperature ranges from 980F (527C) to 1020F (549C). The MS pipe has an OD of about 14.2 inches and a NWT of about 2.0 inches. The base metal is specified as ASTM SA335-P22. An isometric of the top portion of the piping system from the SHOH to the risers is illustrated in Figure 6. Both as-designed and as-found piping stress analyses were performed for the piping system. The as-designed piping analysis indicated compliance with the ASME B31.1 Code. The as-found piping analysis indicated MS piping Code compliance, but the turbine lead piping had several locations of thermal expansion overstress. The HEPLC evaluation indicated the top ranked Location A near end of life and the second ranked Location B with minimal remaining life. As indicated in Figure 6, these locations were the upstream welds of the west line and east line expander fittings to the boiler piping, respectively. Due to high thermal stresses, the evaluation predicted that the material damage would be a combination of creep and some low cycle fatigue. The most material damage was found at Location A, the reducer fitting on the

Copyright 2006 by ASME

west line. As shown in Figure 7, this was a continuous crack extending 17 inches around the outside surface and propagating inch into the pipe. The second ranked Location B (the east line expander fitting) had intermittent cracking in the weld toe, with very little depth. These two locations with significant material damage were ranked 51 and 75, respectively, in the as-designed Code analysis. MAIN STEAM PIPING SYSTEM AT KEEPHILLS 1 This piping system was evaluated during a Fall 2003 overhaul. It began commercial operation in April 1983 and had accumulated approximately 163,000 operating hours through August 2003. This piping system is a sister unit to Keephills 2 and has the same design specifications. The isometric of the top portion of the piping system is the same as Keephills 2. Both as-designed and as-found piping stress analyses were performed for the piping system. The as-designed piping analysis indicated compliance with the ASME B31.1 Code. The as-found piping analysis indicated sustained load overstress locations, at the west line boiler expander welds and at the east line turbine stop valve connection. The asfound piping analysis thermal expansion stresses satisfied the Code requirements. The HEPLC evaluation indicated the top ranked weld was Location A in Figure 6. This evaluation indicated that material damage was predicted to be a combination of creep and some low cycle thermal fatigue. Since the estimated creep life at Location A was substantially less than 160,000 hours, the author requested further information regarding the possibility of a previous weld repair at this location. It was subsequently determined that a minor weld repair was previously performed in 1997. Since the weldment was not fully repaired six years prior to the overhaul, the author recommended an examination at Location A during the 2003 outage. The 2003 examination at Location A revealed a 4-inch (100 mm) long crack (OD connected) with a depth ranging from about 1/2 to 1 inch (10 to 25 mm). A boat sample was removed on the pipe side of the weldment. The metallurgical evaluation of the boat sample by Canspec Group Inc. revealed a 0.6-inch (15 mm) deep subsurface crack in the fine grain heat affected zone of Weld A (Figure 8). In addition to the open crack, a number of microcracks were observed about 1 inch (25 mm) from the surface (Figure 9). Creep voids were observed through the entire thickness of the specimen. The metallurgical evaluation also revealed that the 1997 weld repair did not rejuvenate all of the subsurface microstructural damage. DISCUSSION Over the past 15 years, the HEPLC programs for MS and HRH piping systems have provided more accurate piping stress analyses and life consumption evaluations

than conventional approaches. It is common 1) to find weld thickness measurements different than specified, 2) to find malfunctioning supports in the field, and 3) to determine as-found multiaxial stresses substantially different than the Code stresses. Since these common problems are not considered in the conventional methodology, the HEPLC methodology is a better approach to select critical girth welds subject to creep/fatigue damage in MS and HRH piping systems. The successful prediction of material creep damage using the HEPLC methodology vs. the conventional approach as discussed in the three case studies supports the HEPLC technique. The HEPLC approach can result in substantially different stresses and ranking of critical weldments as compared to the conventional as-designed piping stress analyses, which are use to satisfy Code requirements. HEPLC evaluations of many MS and HRH piping systems have minimized the number of critical examination locations while improving the confidence level for a life management program. CONCLUSIONS There is a need to develop a life management methodology in the selection of critical HEP girth welds. The conventional Code guidelines (equations and Code stress analyses) do not adequately address the evaluation of post construction anomalies and cumulative timedependent creep/fatigue life consumption. As discussed in this paper, the HEPLC methodology has successfully predicted the most critical locations of creep (with possibly some additional fatigue) damage in three MS piping systems. As discussed in the three case studies, the HEPLC approach predicted more accurate material damage rankings than the conventional Code results. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The support of Aptech Engineering Services, Inc. is greatly appreciated and acknowledged. REFERENCES [1] ASME, 2004, ASME B31.1-2004 Edition, Power Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, An American National Standard, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY. [2] Tynan, T.C., Dempsey, P. E., and Damon, J. E., 1986, Life Extension of High Energy Piping Systems, 86JPGC-Pwr-53, ASME/IEEE Power Generation Conference, Portland, Oregon. [3] Erdos, J., Zabielski, A., and Gephart, J. P., 1983, Critical Steam Piping in Operating Power Plants Typical Failures and Treatments, American Power Conference 45th Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

[4] Wray, R. and Balaschak, J. J., 1986, Evaluation and Assessment of Steam Piping in Older Fossil Power Plants, Design and Analysis Methods for Plant Life Assessment, PVP-112, Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference and Exhibition, Chicago, Illinois. [5] Hoffschneider, L. A., Tynan, T. C., and Damon, J. E., 1986, Stress Analysis, A Vital Part of Critical Piping Inspections, Fossil Power Plant Workshop, Electric Power Research Institute, and ASME, San Antonia, Texas. [6] Galpin, D. S., Clark, M. D., 1987, Critical Piping Inspection, Association of Rural Electrical Generating Cooperatives, Montrose, Colorado. [7] Cohn, M. J., 1997, High Energy Piping Reexaminations, Fewer Locations, - Higher Confidence, ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, PVP-359, Fitness for Adverse Environments in Petroleum and Power Equipment, Orlando, Florida, pp. 27-35. [8] Cohn, M. J., 2001 The TransAlta High Energy Piping Program A Five-Year History, Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 123, pp. 65 69.

[9] Cohn, M. J. and Nass, D., 2002, Creep Life Prediction for High Energy Piping Girth Welds, Case History Cholla Unit 2, ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, PVP-439, Pressure Vessels and Piping Codes and Standards, Vancouver, B.C., Canada pp. 83-88. [10] Lam 1852, Lecons sur la thorie de llasticit, Gauthier-Villars, Paris. [11] Bailey, R. W., 1956, Creep Relationships and Their Application to Pipes, Tubes, and Cylindrical Parts Under Internal Pressure, Proceeding, Institute of the Mechanical Engineers, 164. [12] Norton, F. H., 1929, Creep of Steel at High Temperatures, McGraw-Hill, New York, p.67. [13] ASME, August 1994, Class 1 Components in Elevated Temperature Service, Section III, Division I, Cases of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel, Code Case N47-32. [14] Robinson, E. L., July 1952, Effect of Temperature Variation on the Long-time Rupture Strength of Steels, Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 74, pp. 777-781.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Figure 1. MS Piping System Isometric.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

M S As-Designed PDP
3 2

Displacement (Inches)

Observed Designed

Support Number
0
H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6N H6S H7N H7S H8E H8W H9E H9W H10E H10W H11E H11W H12 H13 H14 H15

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5

Figure 2. MS As-Designed PDP.

MS As-Found PDP
3 2

Displacement (Inches)

Observed Simulated
Support Number

1 0
H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6N H6S H7N H7S H8E H8W H9E H9W H10E H10W H11E H11W H12 H13 H14 H15

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5

Figure 3. MS As-Found PDP.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Figure 4. Model of the MS Piping System.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Figure 5. Location A - Severe Propagating Creep Crack.

Figure 6. Isometric of Keephills MS Piping System Top Portion.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Figure 7. Keephills Unit 2 Main Steam Girth Weld Crack at the West SHOH Expander Connection.

10

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Figure 8. Cross-Section of Keephills 1 Boat Sample.

11

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Figure 9. Keephills 1 Microcracks at 25 mm Depth (MAG:125X, 5% Nital Etch).

12

Copyright 2006 by ASME