Presented at the First Intemational Symposium on Process Industry Piping, December, 1998, Orlando, Florida; ‘and published in Symposium Proceedings, pp. 16/1 - 16/54, December, 1983 FAILURES AND FAILURE PREVENTION IN PROCESS PIPING Helmut Thielsch, P.E., President, and Florence M. Cone, Senior Metallurgical Engineer Thielsch Engineering, Inc. 195 Frances Avenue Cranston, Rhode Island 02910 INTRODUCTION Process piping involves the piping within a process unit, where a process unit is formally defined as, ‘an area whose boundaries are designated by the engineering design within which reactions, seperetions, and other processes are carried out." On the basis of this definition, the piping systems contained within any plant where chemical reactions or processes are being carried cut represent process piping systems. The piping in chemical plants is considered to be process piping. The piping in pharmaceutical plants is considered to be process piping. The piping in petroleum refineries is considered to be process piping, In fact, the list encompassing the various types of process piping systems is virtually endless. Process piping systems are essential to the vast majority of Industries in the United States and abroad. Thus, the catastrophic failure of a pipe or component in a process piping system may result in costly business interruptions. More importantly, the catastrophic failure of ‘a process piping system may endanger plant personnel, if an explosion or fire occurs, or & hazardous chemical is released, widespread fatalities and/or undesirable environmental ‘consequences may result. To Improve the availabilty of process piping systems, It is essential for operating and management personnel to have an understanding of the most common causes of failures in process piping systems, Premature failures in process piping systems can occur as a result of a variety of different causes, These may include design deficiencies. They may also include material defect conditions in the pipe or fittings introduced by the manufacturing process, or defect conditions introduced during shop fabrication of pipe spools, or the erection or welding ‘or heat treatment of the process piping system. They may also include deterioration associated with normal or upset operating conditions. FAILURES Various material specifications govern the manufacture of pipes, fitings, components and other materials for use in process piping systems. There are also various Codes and ‘Standards which gover the design, fabrication, erection, and inspection of process piping systems, These Codes and Standards cover process piping systems used by virtually every Industry. In the United States, the applicable Codes and Standards include the ASTM Material Standards, and the various ASME/ANSI B31 Codes for Pressure Piping, in particular, the 831.3 Code for Pressure Piping on *Chernical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping*.2 The development of all of these Codes and Standards was motivated by the desire to prevent failures in process piping systems. Despite the existence of these Codes and Standards, failures do occur in process piping systems. Failures in process piping systems are generally the result of one or a combination of the following five conditions: design deficiencies, manufacturing defects, fabrication or erection defects, service related deterioration or operating deficiencies (including upset operating conditions and accidents). Design Deficiencies Deficiencies in design cen and have produced failures in process piping systems. As a result, extreme care must be taken in the design process to avoid design deficiencies. This Includes the obvious aspects of the design process such as selecting the most suitable pipe diameter and ensuring that the pipe has adequate wall thickness for the Intended service conditions. It also includes the selection of components such as branch connections, extruded tees, nozzle branches, etc., and the specification of castings or forgings, as specific piping products frequently are determined by the design of the piping system. It also includes the ‘selaction of materials on the besis of the expected and possible meximum exposures of the piping to temperatures (high or low). Finally, it includes the recognition of potential upset conditions and an allowance for those upset conditions in the design of the piping system. Manutacturing Defects Manufacturing defects can and have produced failures in process piping systems. ‘These defects, if sufficiently severe, have the potential to produce failures including shrinkage, blowholes, cracks, and cold shut in castings such as vaives, fittings and other components. Defects also include laminations, hot tears, seams and laps in forged or extruded components. Casting shrinkage defects are observed occasionally in valves and other cast ‘components used in process piping systems. In many instances, these defects, the typical appearance of which Is illustrated in Fig. 1., are non-progressive, and thus, do not affect the Intagrty of the process piping system. In other instances, these casting shrinkage defects may be of sutficient severity that they produce leak-type conditions during the original hydrostatic test, ‘or during subsequent service. Laminations are common defects in pipe materials. They represent non-metallic inclusions which are aligned essentially parallel to the surface of the pipe and effectively separate the metal into two or more layers. They may be the result of ‘pipe’, a funnel shaped cavity in the original steel ingot or billet, or involve blisters, seams, inclusions or segregations which are elongated as directional inclusions by working. Laminations in planes parallel to the pipe surface occur most commonly in pipe produced from rolled or seam-welded plate material. They can also occur in welded fitings produced by seam welding of preformed sections cut from plate. In most instances, these feminine acc a elongated stingers, ress the plete hes been subject to extensive cross rolling,Stringerype laminations also occur in seamless pipe materials where their effect is identical to stringer-type laminations in plate material, or in pipe or fittings formed from plate material The various ASTM Standards governing the manufacture of plate and pipe materials generally recognize that laminations within certain limitations can be tolerated and are non- injurious, Moreover, satisfactory performance of pipe with stringer-lype laminations is confirmed by metallurgical analysis of pipe materials conducted on pipe which has been in service for 20 to 80 or more years under various operating conditions. Although laminations are generally nor-injurious, welding of pipes or plates with laminations present at the weld bevel requires some special consideration. Normally, those welding processes which involve elecirades or filer wire with fluxing materials, such as the coated electrades used in shielded metal arc (SMAW) welding, submerged-arc (SAW) welding with granulated fluxes, or flux-cored filer wires generally will produce welds which are not affected adversely by laminations present at the bevel edges, unless the laminations are extremely severe. On the other hand, those welding processes which rely on shielding gases to prevent contamination of the arc zone from the atmosphere may experience difficulties in their ‘weldebilty characteristics and may result in welds containing gas inclusions (porosity) generated ‘rom the base metal laminations. ‘These problems would apply to the welding by the Inert gas tungsten arc (GTAW) welding process, and by the gas metal arc (GMAW) welding process utilizing solid filer wires. Where pipe material contains a significant number of laminations, either ‘the entire weld joint should be welded by shielded metal arc (SMAW) welding with coated electrodes, or by submerged are (SAW) welding. ‘Surface laps are another condition introduced during manufacturing. They generally are considered to be non-critical if they do not exceed 12.5% of the nominal wall thickness. Occasionally, a more severe surface lap or surface tear can produce a failure in a process piping system. The elbow shown in Fig. 2 is a case in point. It involved an 8 NPS, Schedule 120 elbow produced in accordance with ASTM Specification A-234 which failed catastrophically in @ compressor installation after being in service less than three months. ‘The segment shown in Fig. 3 was removed from a piece of 14 NPS, Schedule XS (0.500" wall thickness) pipe produced in accordance with API Specification 6L. This pipe leaked during the original hydrostatic test of the pipeline at a gas liquetying plant in which it was installed. Close-up views of the leak in this segment, as revealed by the liquid penetrant examination, are provided in Fig. 4. The subsequent metallurgical examination of the pipe ‘segment confirmed that the cracking had been produced by a severe tear, as shown in Fig. 5. This tear extended into the cross-sectional thickness of the pipe for a distance of 21%. During the hydrostatic testing, this severe surface tear led to cracking through the pipe wall, which then resulted in leakage, Elecitric resistance welded pipe has also been utilized in process piping. Failures in these have occurred as a result of defective i.e. poorly fused seam welds. Failures have Ccourred also as a result of accelerated preferential corrosion of the seam welds. Some of the leaks thet have occurred have resulted in major fires or explosions from the leakage of hydrocarbon fluids or gases. Occasionally, unusual delect conditions are introduced during the manufacture of pipe material. The pipe segment shown in Fig. 6 involved 1* OD by 0,102" wall thickness stainless steel pipe produced in accordance with ASTM Specification SA-312, Type 304. It was removed from a piping system in a cold box after halogen leak testing reveeled a leak. The subsequent+ metallurgical evaluation of the pipe segment confirmed that the failure was caused by @ hard ‘metal chip being impressed into the pipe during the drawing operation. The pressure of the die against the chip caused the impression into the pipe and cracking through the pipe wall, Fig. 7. Material discrepancies are another potential source of failures in process piping systems. Depending upon where the material discrepancy is frst introduced, it can be classified as either a manutacturing or fabrication defect. If, for instance, a febricator inadvertently substitutes a carbon steel fiting for a low-elloy ste! fiting, then the substitution is classified as a fabrication defect. If, on the other hand, the fabricator substitutes a carbon steel fitting that had been incorrectly identified by the original manufacturer as representing low-alloy steel, the substitution is a manufacturing defect. Material discrepancies that are classified as manufacturing defects can be separated into two groups, deviations in the bulk chemical composition, and deviations in the mechanical properties. ‘The clamshell elbow shown in Fig. € felled as a result of deviations in the bulk chemical composition. It is an extremely rare case involving both improper base material and Improper filler material. This elbow, which had an outside diameter of 24" and a well thickness of 0.75", was in service in @ piping system at an aromatics plant which carried hydrogen at 1,000°F. This elbow wes supposed to be fabricated from plete material with a nominal composition of 1-1/4 Cr - 1/2 Mo low-alloy steel using weld filler metal with the same nominal composition. This elbow developed cracking during service, Fig. 9, producing a leak and a fire, ‘The subsequent metallurgical evaluation confirmed that one of the plates used in the fabrication cof the clamshell elbow involved carbon steel. The filer metal used to complete the seam welds ‘on the extrados and the Intrados of the elbow also represented carbon steel. At the elevated ‘operating temperatures, the carbon steel materiel was subject to creep deterioration and the associated cracking. ‘As the other clamshell elbows in the piping system were supplied by the same concem, they were also evaluated nondestructively and metallurgically. This evaluation confirmed that three other elbows in the system had been welded using carbon steel filler material. These elbows, which also had developed cracking, were removed from service immediately. The pipe spool piece shown in Fig. 10 was produced In accordance with ASTM Specification A-155, Grade D (2-4/4 Cr- 1 Mo low-alloy steel). Ithad an outside diameter of 32° and @ nominal wall thickness of 1.625". This pipe spool piece, which was intended for use in @ process piping system, developed severe cracking during incremental hot bending. The subsequent metallurgical examination confirmed that it had a high residual nickel content and thus, had lower than normal impact properties. ‘The pipe segment shown in Fig. 11 represented 18 NPS, Schedule 80 pipe produced in accordance with ASTM Specification A-335, Grade P11. it was also intended for use in & process piping system. it developed cracking during incremental hot bending. It was subsequently confirmed that the pipe material was *hot short’, i.e., possessed inadequate ductility at elevated temperatures where bending is performed. Maierial discrepancies such as “hot shortness‘ may pose difficulties during the fabrication and erection of process piping systems. Other material discrepancies may never pose a problem. The flanges shown in Fig, 12 are a case in point. They were removed from ‘a process piping system which had been erected at a plant producing liquld propane. A curiousengineer decided to confirm the chemical composition and the mechanical properties of a flange left over after the erection of this piping system and to compere the results with the applicable ASTM Specification, A250, This specification sets forth minimum impact properties of 15 ft-lbs. Unfortunately, the flange only exhibited impact properties of 8 ft-Ibs. to 10 ft-lbs. The engineer removed several other flanges from the completed piping system and subjected them to impact testing. They also exhibited "inadequate" impact properties. The engineer then informed his management that the flanges he had tested did not conform to the applicable specification and the integrity of the piping system was therefore ‘suspect. Shortly thereatter, all of the flanges (approximately 700 total) were removed from the piping system and replaced. Needless to say, this replacement program involved a considerable sum of money and an extended business interruption. Unfortunately, the replacement of the flanges was entirely unnecessary. First, it should bbe recognized that ASTM Speoification A-360 does not require impact testing or tensile testing of the actual flanges. Rather, it requires impact testing of *blanks* forged from the same heat of steel, using identical parameters. These "blanks" were tested by the firm which produced the flanges and exhibited acceptable impact toughness properties. lt should be noted that the ASTM Specifications covering Charpy V-notch impact testing, recognize that the Charpy V-notch impact toughness test results at a specific testing ‘temperature do not directly correlate with the actual impact properties at the temperatures to which the products are subjected. Carbon steel materials with impact properties of less than 15 ‘ft-lbs. are providing entirely satisfactory service in many applications at temperatures equal to and lower than the testing temperatures. Of course, there are defective flanges. So-called "Chinese flanges’ ere currently a subject of much concem.” The 2* OD weld neck flanges shown in Figs, 19 end 14, although not Chinese in origin, were elso defective, containing forging tears that leaked during hydrostatic testing, Fabrication Defects Fabrication defects also lead to premature failures in process piping systems. By far, the most common type of fabrication defect involves weld defects such as incomplete Penetration, lack of fusion, or cracking, Various Codes and Standards that govern the fabrication and erection of piping systems frequently require radiographic examinations of the welds in the piping system to detect these subsurface defect conditions. The extent of the examinations required may depend on the pressure and temperature or the fluid being conveyed through the piping system. It mey also depend on the corrosiveness or toxicity of the process fluid, or the potential consequences of failures. In certain instances where radiographic examination is required, it may not be suitable, ie., it may not readily detect cracking conditions which exist. This is particularly true of welds completed by the gas metal arc welding process which has the propensity to praduce sidewall lack of fusion. Depending upon the severity of the lack of fusion condition, it may not be detectable by radiographic examination. Ina chemical processing plent, after several years of service, a mejor leak developed through a 3 diameter carbon steel pipe that had been welded by the gas metal arc welding process. The original weld, which represented a shop fabricated weld, contained approximately 70% lack of fusion in the weld. The weld was located near a control valve thet introduced a& slight shock into the pipe section every time the valve closed suddenly. In time, a crack ‘developed and progressed from the lack-of-fusion defect. This then resulted in a major hydrocar- bon fluid leak. This, in tum, caused a fire to occur with resulting damage to the plant of approximately $10 milion. In other instances, where a piping system is subject to random radiographic examination, a weld containing a rejectable defect condition may not be inspected. The weld on the 24 NPS, Schedule 40 end cap shown in Fig. 15 is a case in point. It was located on the ‘end of a manifold in an ammonia process loop. The manifold had been extended approximately ‘one yeer previously. During normal operation, the end cap blew off, releasing a cloud of ‘ammonia, and necessitating the evacuation of a nearby community. The subsequent metallurgicel examination of the weld confirmed that it contained a severe incomplete penetration defect, Fig. 16, which comprised approximately 60% of the available cross-sectional thickness. The remaining ‘cross-sectional thickness had failed by fatigue. ‘Severe lack of fusion, of the type shown in Fig. 17, can also result in problems. This defect condition was located in a circumferential weld in a process steam piping system fabricated from 6 NPS, Schedule 40 carbon steel pipe produced in accordance with ASTM Specification A-53, Grade 8, While this defect concition did not result in a leak during the original hydrostatic test of the piping system, it did serve as an initiation site for stress corrosion racking during service. In some instances, are strikes, which are not commonly peresived as weld defects, may also pose problems. For instance, the elbow shown in Fig. 18 was removed from the monomer transfer piping associated with an esterification reactor. This piping represented a jacketed construction of carbon and stainless steel piping. The inner stainless steel piping, Which involved 2 NPS, Schedule 40, wes used to transfer the monomer, while the outer carbon steel piping, which involved 3* OD, Schedule 40, contained Dowtherm fluid. The Dowtherm fluid was maintained et an elevated temperature to ensure that the monomer remained liquid. Phosphoric acid was injected into the nipple on the elbow shown to further ensure that the monomer remained liquid. Unfortunately, the monomer solldified or froze, as shown in Fig. 19, and the entire piping system had to be dismantled and discarded. The solidification of the monomer in the transfer piping system was caused by defective welding, which resulted in arc strikes on the surface of the stainless steel elbow. The are strikes apperently also created indentations and introduced very significant susceptibility to corrosion and erosion developing from the inside of the Type 04 stainless steel elbow material. One of the other factors which contributed to the failure of the elbow and the subsequent solidification of the monomer in the piping system was the fact that the elbow represented an AISI Type 304 stainless stool material rather than an AIS! Type 316 steinless stee! meterial. In this instance, the fabricator of the piping system inadvertently substituted one material for another. This represents a fabrication defect. (If, on the other hand, the elbow had been incorrectly identified by the manufacturer, It would involve an original manufacturing defect.) Fortunately, fabrication defects involving the substitution of one material for another, are not common. They can and do occur, and, in several instances have caused failures. In some instances, entire spool pisces or fittings are misidentified. In other instances, the incorrect welding filler material is utilized.of One instance when the use of Improper filler material produced a leak is the process. piping system shown in Fig. 20. This piping system, which involved 4 NPS, Schedule 10 stainless steel piping, was located at a plastics plant. Less than 1 month after the system was brought on line, thres leaks were discovered. These leaks were all located in field welds. The metallurgical evaluation of the failed weld Joints confirmed that the fallures resulted from preferential attack and localized corrosion at the heet-atfected zones. This preferential attack, Which is illustrated in Figs. 21 and 22, was caused by the fact that the root pass of the weld had been made using AWS E-317L electrodes rather than Hastelloy C-276 electrades, the material specified, Service-Related Deterioration Process piping systems, depending upon the fluid which they transport, are subject to a variety of different service conditions. The piping system may be subject to sub-zero ‘operating temperatures where embrittiement is a real possibility. The piping system may also bbe subject to elevated operating temperatures where failure by creep becomes a concem. Embrittlement and creep are two of the several characteristics of metals associated with service- ‘elated deterioration. A variety of other service conditions may resutt in different types of deterio- ration Including hydrogen damage, erosion, corrosion, stress corrosion, fatigue, stress relief racking, etc. These and other types of service-related deterioration account for the vast majority Of failures in process piping systems, A considerable number of process piping systems are subject to operation at tempera- tures of 800°F and higher. Piping systems thet operate at these temperatures for prolonged periods of time are subject to creep. Creep represents the slow flow of metal subjected to high temperatures, or great pressures. Metallurgically, creep is defined as the time-dependent strain occurring under stress. The creep strain occurring at a diminishing rate is called primary creep; that occurring at a minimum and almost constant rate, secondary creep; that occurring at an accelerating rate, tertiary creep. At some stage during secondary creep, voids will develop in the microstructure of the ‘metal foliowed by void linkage and fissuring, If not detected, the fissures will grow to cracks and, in time, to rupture. Conditions of creep occur in many piping systems, pressure vessels, furmaces, boilers, reformers and other high temperature equipment, The piping system shown in Fig. 23 was located in a cracking unit at a refinery. It was lined intemally with refractory to protect the low-alloy steel piping system from the elevated operating temperatures. Overtime, the refractory was damaged, and in some cases spelled out. The exposed portions of the low-alloy steel piping system were exposed to temperatures of 1,200°F and higher, and shortly developed creep damage, Fig. 24, Because of incidents such as this, and also a number of catastrophic failures in piping systems, detection of creep by nondestructive examination techniques has become increasingly important. In the past, such detection involved the removal of metal samples. In more recent years, creep has been measured by replication (an in-situ metallographic technique). These methods generally are costly in that they require removel of insulation and cooling of the ‘equipment to room temperature at the location where creep is suspected. A more effective nondestructive examination technique that recently has been developed involves direct creep measurements with capacitive strain gages that are attached to the surface of the pressure vessel or pipe. A typical installation is illustrated in Fig. 25. A thermocouple is also attached adjacent to each capacitive strain gage.>a 1ese gages provide an accurate predictive method for estimating the residual life of process piping systems operating at high temperatures and stresses. Typical creep strain rates, and temperatures measured on a 2-1/4 Cr- 1 Mo alloy steel pipe operating at 950°F are shown in Fig. 26. These creep measurements are particularly advantageous for piping systems that have been subjected to 60,000 or more hours of operation, where creep damage involving void formation is slight. Even where initial void formation is discovered, the piping system, if properly monitored, may provide another 150,000 hours to 250,000 hours of safe and satisfactory service. Ifthe direct measurement shows an excessively high creep strain rate which may lead to cracking and premature failure of the piping system, the creep rate can be reduced significantly by lowering the operating temperature at the location of creep, Fig. 27. Similarly, the creep rate can be reduced by reinforcing the pipe by means of additional weld bulle-ups or reinforcements. Actual measurements, in conjunction with the evaluation techniques referenced, provide a significant improvement over previous methods for evaluating creep damage resulting in void formation, fissuring, and cracking, and for monitoring the remaining safe life of high temperature process piping systems. Creep is not the only adverse side effect of elevated operating temperatures. Elevated ‘operating temperatures will also produce graphitization in carbon steels and carbon - 1/2 molybdenum steels, Fig. 28. The segment shown in Fig. 28 wes removed from a 12" OD valve produced in accordance with ASTM Specification A-157, Grade C, which developed graphitization in service. Pipe ruptures have occurred where the degree of graphitization extended as a nearly continuous plane through the wall thickness of the pipe. Conditions of hydrogen embrittlement and hydrogen damage can also occur in carbon steels, low-alloy steels and even stainless steels, depending upon the temperatures and exposure times, ‘The ruptured pipe segment shown in Fig. 29 involved 10 NPS, Schedule 10 pipe produced in accordance with ASTM Specification A312, Type 804. It was removed from a nitric acid piping system. It wes subject to severe hydrogen embrittlement and damage. This hydrogen damage resuited in cracking and blistering es shown in Fig. 30, ‘The presence and the severity of hydrogen damage, graphitization, and creep can generally be detected by replication techniques. In some instances, if these conditions are detected early, the vessel, pipe or component can be restored to satistactory levels of integrity by heattreatments. if undetected, these conditions have produced catastrophic vessel, pipe and equipment failures. Erosion is another mechenism which produces feilures in process piping systems. Typically, it occurs in those systems where two-phase flow exists at locetions where the direction of flow suddenly changes. Erosion also occurs in systems carrying abrasive materials or slurries. The gray iron rubber lined diaphragm valve shown in Fig. 31 wes removed from a pipeline carying catalyst at an oil refinery. This valve could not be properly closed, and under the abrasive operating conditions, falled in less than 30 days. In general terms, failures produced strictly by erosion are less common then failures produced by erosion in conjunction with corrosion. Typically, in failures produced by ero- sion/corrosion, the erosion removes the protective oxide coating, exposing a bare metal surface.2 ‘The process fluid then corrodes the base metal. As the erosion ensures that the protective oxide coating never has a chance to reform, the corrosion can progress unabated. The ductile iron pipe segment shown in Fig. $2 had an outside diameter of 8* and a wall thickness of 0.950". It wes removed from the piping associated with a white liquor clarifier. Itillustrates the effects of combined erosion/corrosion. Corrosion also accounts for failures in process piping systems. Corrosion can take many forms including general corrosion and pitting corrosion, In certain environments, corrosion, in conjunction with tensile stresses, may also produce stress corrosion cracking. General corrosion, which involves reductions in thickness over a large area may occur from the inside diameter of the pipe as a result of a corrosive process fluld, or some contaminant inadvertently introduced into the process fluid. It also may occur from the outside diameter of the pipe. Fig, 99 illustrates the rupture of a 6 NPS, Schedule 40 carbon stee! pipe thet occurred at @ petroleum refinery and resulted in an explosion and subsequent fre, The rupture occurred after general corrosion at the 6:00 o'clock position reduced the original pipe wall thickness to such an extent that it was uneble to withstand the operating pressure and burst, The general corrosion was caused by water collecting along the bottom of the pipe during shutdowns. Because of the relatively high levels of sulfur contained in the petroleum product flowing through the piping system, sulfuric acid formed. The general corrosion produced by the sulfuric acid could have been detected by periodic ultrasonic wall thickness testing of the piping system, Corrosion can also occur from the outside diameter of the line. For instance, the 4 NPS, Schedule 80 hydrogen supply line shown in Fig. $4, passed over a small waste water plume. This plume resulted in gradual corrosion of the piping system, and finally, the rupture ofthe pipe. Photographs showing the corrosion which occurred in the supply line are provided in Fig. $5. An additional photograph, Illustrating the darnage produced by the explosion which occurred after the pipe ruptured, is provided in Fig. 36. Stress corrosion cracking, as mentioned previously, is another form of corrosion. It Is due to @ combination of stress, @ corrosive environment, and metallurgical conditions. In cartoon steel piping systems, stress corrosion cracking relates to applied or residual stresses in conjunetion with a caustic environment. In stainless steel piping systems, cracking is generally associated with chloride contamination. The tensile stresses necessary to produce stress, corrosion cracking in piping systems are frequently associated with welding, Tensile stresses can also result from end-sizing for fitup or cutting, surface grinding, bending stresses, hoop stresses, etc. Fatigue may also initiate or contribute to stress corresion cracking. ‘The rate of attack depends on the concentration of the specific corrosive, the temperature and the stress level. The higher the concentration of corrosive, tha higher the operating temperature, and/or the higher the stress levels, the more severe the corrosion will be. ‘The pipe segment shown in Fig. 37 was removed from en ammonia synthesis loop after it ruptured, The subsequent metallurgical evaluation confirmed that the rupture resulted from stress corrosion cracking, initiating fram the autside diemeter surface of the pipe, Fig. 38. Apparently, the insulation covering the pipe had been subjected to intermittent wetting and leached chlorides.-10- Cracking in process piping systems may also be caused by fatigue, either mechanical or thermal in nature. The 24 NPS piping system shown in Fig, 89 carried process steam at a paper mill. After less than two years of service, cracking developed at the drip pots in this line. These drip pots were removed from service. Immedietely thereafter, cracking was noted in a weld joint in the steam line proper. Nondestructive examination of other weld joints revealed cracking of the type shown in Fig, 40. The cracking predominantly occurred at the high stress locations, Although the metallurgical analyses performed by several investigators suggested caustic stress corrosion cracking as the cause of cracking, the selective pattern of cracking appeared more typical of cracking produced by high-cycle fatigue. High-cycle fatigue cracking in process piping systems is generally associated with flow induced vibration, or, in some cases, weter hammer. ‘The initiating causes are extremely difficult to diagnose. Accidents and Upset Operating Conditions Accidents and upset operating conditions mey also produce deterioration or failures in process piping systems. For instance, the LNG pipeline shown in Fig. 41 was fabricated using 22" OD, Schedule 105 pipe produced in accordance with ASTM Specification A-258, Type 304 stainless steel. it was hit by a truck passing undemeath the pipe bridge. The impact produced ‘wo large indentations in the pipeline, Fig. 42, but luckily did not produce a rupture, The subse- quent evaluation of the pipe confirmed that, despite the presence of the indentations, the pipe segment was suitable for the intended service conditions. In some cases, damage sustained during impact loading cen produce a pipe rupture, The pipe segment shown in Fig. 43 wes part of an underwater pipeline which supplied natural gas to en aluminum company. This pipeline, which had an outside diameter of 12.75" end a wall thickness of 0.375", was damaged by an auger, Fig. 44, during a dredging operation, and ruptured, spewing natural gas into the waterwey. Although this pipeline should, by definition, be classified as transmission piping rather than process piping, itis used here to illustrate the potential effects of impact damage. Fires may produce substantial damage in process piping systems. Occasionally, the fires are internal to the pipe, Fig. 45. In most cases, the fires are extemal. When a process piping system is exposed to localized overheating as a result offre (or any other type of upset operating condition), severe damage can result. This damage may result in physical distortion of the process piping system in question. It may also involve metallurgical changes to the process piping system which, in the most severe case, will result in failure. Although fires or upset operating conditions can result in significant damage, the damage is generally'less severe than appearances would indicate. Thus, it is essential to perform a comprehensive inspection of @ piping system subject to such an incident to ensure that necessary repairs ere performed, ‘and unnecessary repairs are avoided. On a general note, it should be realized that the components in process piping systems may be heated to temperatures of 1,600°F to 2,000°F during original manufacture as part of normal shop operations including rolling, forming, extrusion, etc, Welding will heat the base metal in the localized heat-affected zone to temperatures of over 2,000°F. Some postweld heat treatments may involve normalizing et 1,650°F. Stress relief heat treatments, depending upon the composition of the steel, may be performed at temperatures of 1,150°F to 1,350°F. It is thus recognized that steel generally will not be damaged when heated to these elevated temperatures during manufacture, forming and shaping, fabrication and/or erection. On the“te other hand, it should be realized that when components are heated during normal shop ‘operations, the heating is a closely controlled process. By their very nature, fires or other upset conditions that resuit in localized overheating are uncontrolled processes. Thus, care must be taken to evaluate the effects of overheating which occurs as a result of such upset conditions. CONCLUSIONS Failures in process piping systems can occur for a variety of reasons, Including design deficiencies, manufacturing or fabrication defects, or service related deterioration.” It is imperative that the owners and operators of process piping systems have a firm grasp of the types of failures which may occur so thet the inspection of the process piping system, whether original or in-service, can be tailored to detect defect conditions which have the potential to cause failures REFERENCES 1. ASME BS1.3 Code for Pressure Piping on “Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping". 2. National Board Bulletin, Special Edition, Vol. 48, No. 2, 1992, Published by the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors, Columbus, Ohio. 3. H, Thielsch, N. Knarr and C. Burdick, "Capacitive Creep Strain Measurements Predict Component Life’, POWER ENGINEERING, Vol. 96, pp. 24 - 27, May 1991. 4, H. Thlelsch, "Defects end Failures in Pressure Vessels and Piping’, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Inc., Malabar, Florida, Second Edition 1977.Fig. 1, Original casting defect in valve body as revealed by liquid penetrant examination.Fig. 2. Failure of elbow caused by severe forging tear.Fig. 3, Close-up photographs of segment of pipe containing a surface tear.Fig. 4. Surface tear revealed by liquid penetrant examination.“42} Jo Uope00) ye JuaLUBes adid jo UoRO9s SSO °G “BILFig. 6. Close up views of segment removed from cold box piping.Fig. 7. Cross section of segment removed from cold box piping.Fig. 8 Clam shell elbow which developed cracking in service,Fig. 8. Photographie print of radiographic film illustrating cracking which developed in clam shell elbow.Fig. 10. Pipe spool piece which developed cracking as a result of residual nickel content.Fig. 14 Spool piece which developed cracking during incremental fot bending as a result of “hot shortness’Fig. 12, Overall view of flange sections removed from process piping system at liquid propane plant.Fig. 13. Weldneck flange containing forging defect.Fig. 14. Weldineck flange containing forsing defect.Fig. 15. Overall view of end cap.Fig. 16. Close-up views of weld illustrating incamplete penetration defect.Fig. 17. Severe lack of fusion defect.Fig, 18. Elbow with pinhole leak,Fig, 19. Freeze-up of monomer in piping system.Fig. 20. Leeks in process piping system carrying plestics.10K 10X Fig. 22. Cross section showing preferential corrosion.Fig, 21 Close-up views of preferential corrosion of welds. pe HTT TTTFig. 28. Photogtephs of process piping system at refinery.Fig. 24. Creep damage observed in area subject to localized overheating.Fig. 25. Typical installetion of capacitive strain gage.0.08 0.06 ° pH z Zz 0.04 Leal & rc & a, 0.02 a a ca ee ee hee ee «00 not a -0,02 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 T0000 HOURS OF OPERATION 1000 975 = 960 a 2 EB 925 < & # 00 a F 875 850 0 2000 4000 6000 ‘8000 710000 HOURS OF OPERATION LOCATION A-—-—~- LOCATION B xxx LOCATION GC == A: OUTER ARC OF BEND B: NEUTRAL ARC OF BEND C: CALISRATION GAGE Fig. 26. Creep strain and temperature measurements of pipa bend et 950°F in piping system involving 2-1/4 Cr-1 Mo low alloy steel,CREEP STRAIN - PERCENT 0.24 0.20 0.16 012 0.08 0.04 985° F : 0.00 0.04 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 TIME - HOURS Fig. 27. Change in creep strain rate by decrease in operating temperature,Fig. 28. Cross section of pipe subject to grephiiization.Fig. 29. Overall and close-up views of ruptured pipe segment removed from nitric acid piping system.Fig. 80. Close-up views of ctacking and blistering in pipe segment removed from nitric acid piping system.Fig. 31, Gray Iron valve subject to erosion damage.Fig. 82. Cast iron pipe segment subject to erosion/corrosion.Fig, 88, Pipe rupture dus to general corroslon,Fig. 94. Overall views of 4" NPS hydrogen supply line exhibiting corrosion,“uoIsous09 Jo swan dn-esojg ‘98 “BI eeFig. 36. Damage produced by failure of supply line.18x Fig. 37. Overall views of ruptured pipe segment.4100X Fig. 88. Pipe cross section illustrating stress corrosion cracking.Fig. 38. Close-up views of piping system subject to high cycle fatigue cracking,Fig. 40. High cycle fatigue cracking as revealed by wet fluorescent magnetic particle examination.Fig. 41. Overall views of LNG pipe line containing indentations.Fig, 43, Close-up views of pipe segment subject to impact demage,Fig. 44. Overall view of auger.Fig. 48. Pipes subject to Internal fires.