Higher Energy Piping Reexaminations
Fewer Locations- Higher Confidence
Marvin J Cohn
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.
Abstract
Many utilities select high energy piping (HEP)
reexamination locations by considering the
highest sustained longitudinal stress location,
highest thermal expansion stress location,
terminal point locations, and fitting
weldments. Eighteen HEP systems were
evaluated for highest priority girth weld
examination locations. Using the above
approach, the number of conventional
reexamination sites varied from 6 to 20
locations per piping system.
As an alternative, a high energy piping life
consumption (HEPLC) methodology is used
to predict maximum material damage
locations. The methodology is customized to
prioritize expected creep damage (ECD)
considering applicable affects, such as field
piping displacements, time-dependent
operating stresses, and multiaxial piping
stresses.
This paper includes a case history of 18 main
steam or reheat piping systems in 12 fossil
power plant units. It compares reexamination
locations selected by the HEPLC
methodology to locations selected by
conventional criteria.
The HEPLC risk-based inspection
methodology may be considered as a rational
approach to reduce conventionally selected
reexamination locations by more than 50% in
most cases. This approach also revealed
some locations of high ECD which were not
identified by the conventional site selection
approach. The HEPLC approach can be
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.
1
used with metallurgical replication to justify
reexamination intervals beyond 5 years.
Introduction
Many fossil power plants throughout the
world are being considered for operation
beyond their original design lives of 30 to 40
years. To meet these long-term objectives,
nondestructive methodologies have been
used extensively in the past decade to
perform condition assessments, to estimate
the remaining economic lives, and to provide
reexamination intervals of critical power plant
components.
Since it is prohibitively expensive to examine
all of the piping system weldments during
each inspection, the most critical sites are
commonly selected using criteria such as
engineering judgement and locations of
historical failures. Selection of examination
locations based on engineering judgment may
include high stress locations from the results of
conventional stress analyses and welds near
supports that are not functioning as originally
designed. Selection of examination locations
based on historical experience may include
terminal welds, fitting welds (e.g., valves,
reducers, tees, wyes, and laterals), and sites of
previous nondestructive examination (NDE)
indications unique to the unit.
High stress locations are commonly selected
by a flexibility stress analysis developed in
accordance with the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B31.1 Power
Piping Code (ASME, 1995); both the
sustained longitudinal stress, SL, and thermal
TP114
expansion stress range, SE, results divided by
their respective allowables (Sh and SA) are
usually sorted and ranked in the flexibility
analysis programs to identify the maximum
stress ratio locations. Consequently, flexibility
analyses programs to identify the maximum
stress ratio locations. Consequently, flexibility
analysis software provide a convenient
approach to rank high stress locations based
on ASME B31.1 criteria.
Why Is Effective Life Consumption
Approach More Effective?
This paper suggests that the conventional
approach to select examination sites may not
be very reliable because some of the most
critical creep damage locations may not be
identified. Furthermore, many of the
conventionally selected sites do not have to
be reexamined perpetually. The use of
HEPLC methodology provides a rational
approach to select high ECD locations for
inspections. It is cost effective because
unnecessary locations selected by the
conventional approach can be screened out
and some high ECD locations are identified
which are not captured by the conventional
criteria. The HEPLC methodology was
developed to evaluate the multifaceted life
consumption problem by improving on the
conventional methodology as described in the
eight topics below.
Evaluation Of Operating Loads
As discussed above, the ASME B31.1 Code
approach considers a ranking of SL/Sh and
SE/SA. It does not consider any combination
of the hoop stress with the axial stress.
Although the operating load case can be
evaluated in conventional software, the
ASME B31.1 high stress criteria does not
consider the results of the online piping
system loads. There have been many
instances where the combination of the
sustained and thermal expansion loads result
in a significantly different ranking than either
the SL/Sh and SE/SA tables. Consequently, the
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.
2
HEPLC methodology considers the operating
loads at the beginning of unit operation.
Life Consumption
The specified scope for the Code is to
“prescribe minimum requirements for design,
materials, fabrication, erection, test, and
inspection of power and auxiliary service
piping systems.” There is no life evaluation
associated with a Code analysis. Evaluation
of the life consumption of an HEP system is
beyond the scope of the Code and should be
performed by enhanced analysis. The
HEPLC approach uses a cumulative life
fraction of the appropriate steps.
Material Property Degradation
Most main steam and hot reheat piping
system materials are subject to creep during
normal operation. Two distinct creep damage
processes occur in low alloy ferritic steels.
Microstructural degradation results in gradual
reduction of creep strength and accelerated
strain cumulation. In addition, creep
cavitation primarily occurs along the grain
boundaries. As the creep damage proceeds,
these damage processes reduce the ultimate
tensile strength, yield strength, and creep
rupture strength of material.
An example of the time-dependent property
degradation is presented in Table 1-14.6D of
Code Cases N-47 (ASME, 1994). The
minimum stress to rupture value of
2-1/4Cr-1Mo at 1000°F drops from 9.4 ksi
(65MPa) at 100,000 hours to 7.9 ksi (55MPa)
at 300,000 hours. These time-dependent
material property degradation effects are not
considered in the Code. Empirical curve fit
rupture equations are used as part of the
HEPLC approach.
Weldment Properties
For the purpose of this paper, a weldment is
defined as a joint consisting of unaffected
base metal, the base metal heat affected zone
(HAZ), and weld metal. The Code stress
allowable tables do not distinguish between
TP114
base metal and weldment properties
(provided that the weldment has been 100%
radiographed prior to service). If the base
metal and weld metal have similar material
composition, Table 1-14.10D of Code
Case N47 (ASME, 1994) illustrates that the
weldment creep properties degrade faster
than the base metal creep properties. Since
this is primarily an in-service issue, the
evaluation of this effect is outside of the scope
of the Code. The HEPLC methodology
includes a weldment factor which results in an
increased life consumption due to the HAZ
creep rupture strength, weld profile stress
concentrations, material property mismatch
stress concentrations, and the volume of field
“tested” material.
Multiaxial Stress
The Code considers the hoop stress separate
from the longitudinal stress. Hoop stress due
to pressure is considered in the Code pipe
wall thickness calculation. The Code stress
calculation for sustained loads specifies a
stress based on the axial stress due to pressure
and the combined moments due to torsion
and bending. The Code stress calculation for
thermal expansion stress range specifies a
stress based on only the combined moments
due to torsion and bending. Alternatively, the
HEPLC approach determines a creep
initiation stress based on the von Mises stress,
including the hoop stress component (Cohn,
1990).
Simulation of Field Conditions
The HEPLC methodology (Cohn, 1989;
Cohn, 1990; Cohn 1994; Cohn, 1995) is
based on the simulation of field conditions.
This includes the effects of anomalies, such as
pipe interferences and topped out and
bottomed out hangers. The as-found stress
analysis (Cohn, 1989) may be much more
accurate than the original as-designed stress
analysis. As discussed by Cohn and May
(1996), it is not recommended that
improperly functioning hangers be modeled
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.
3
by limit stops to simulate observed
displacements. Limit stops should be used
only when necessary and with careful
consideration of proper user input values.
There may be instances where a piping
system may have a limit stop or a pipe roll
support, which may be active offline and may
not be loaded online or vice versa. The Code
does not distinguish between the offline and
online deadweight cases, which may be
nonconservative. Alternatively, the HEPLC
methodology considers creep relaxation of the
online operating loads, which is more realistic
for the prediction of gradually changing
stresses and cumulative material damage.
The simulation approach of thermal
expansion displacements does not account for
material strain due to system self-springing,
shakedown, and creep relaxation of thermal
loads. These displacement effects are most
significant during the few years after 1) initial
operation of the unit, 2) hanger position
indicator adjustments, and 3) hanger load
adjustments. Once the piping system has
experienced several years of operation and a
few outages, additional displacement changes
due to any of the above three effects are
reduced to a negligible level. Beyond 5 years
of piping system operation, it is believed that
the simulation of thermal expansion
displacement range provides a very good
estimate of the actual piping system thermal
expansion stress range.
Fewer NDE Locations
Microstructural creep damage is first evident
in HAZ. Even in the HAZ, significant creep
damage is not expected to occur until the
material has reached 40 to 80% of the life
exhaustion. It is common to have many girth
welds at relatively low stresses and a few
welds at significantly higher stresses. In the
following study of 18 piping systems, it was
typically found that locations ranked beyond
four have considerably less stress and less
TP114
microstructural damage due to service
conditions.
If a weld is expected to have less than 40%
life exhaustion, metallurgical replication will
probably reveal creep damage no greater than
isolated cavities. Reexamination of locations
with low ECDs is not productive because the
results can be predicted apriori as no
reportable indications and no evidence of
significant creep damage. The HEPLC
methodology provides a rational approach to
justify that reexamination (e.g., by ultrasonic
examination (UT), magnetic particle
examination (MT), and metallurgical
replication) of locations with low ECDs is not
cost effective.
Quantitative Justifiable Reexamination
Intervals
The HEPLC methodology provides a rational
process to justify reexamination intervals until
the next scheduled outage (18 to 60 months)
based on the results of microstructural
examinations at appropriate locations. It is
probable that the UT and MT would not
reveal indications as small as 1/16 inch
(1.6mm) or a microcrack. For lower stressed
(e.g., ASTM A 335, Grade P22 material at
5.7 ksi (39MPa)) girth welds, high quality UT
resulting in no reportable indications may
provide as much as a 5-year reexamination
interval.
This is illustrated in the Tolerable FlawSM
diagram (TFD) presented in Figure 1. In a
recent study, an ASTM A 335, Grade P22
main stream pipe had a 508mm (20-inch)
diameter and was 78mm (3.08 inches) thick,
there was a significant NDE indication in a
specific girth weld subject to 5.7 ksi (39MPa)
bending stress. A fracture mechanics analysis
predicted that crack propagation instability
effectively occurs at the time a hypothetical
crack propagates through the wall (up to 13-
inch circumferential crack length), as
illustrated in the t=0 curve. If the maximum
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.
4
crack depth for the indication in this weld is
0.50 inch (13mm), the indication can be
reexamined in 24 months (as illustrated in the
t=24 months curve), with a safety factor of
3.0 on stress. If the maximum crack depth for
the indication is 0.15 inch (3.8mm), it is
justifiable to reexamine the indication within
60 months.
Higher stressed (e.g., ASTM A 335,
Grade P22 material at 7.5 ksi (52MPa)) girth
welds with no reportable UT indications may
not provide reexamination intervals beyond 2
or 3 years. For example, if the above girth
weld was subject to a stress of 7.5 ksi instead
of 5.7 ksi, a crack depth sized at 0.06 inch has
a reexamination interval of only 2 years, as
illustrated in the TFD presented in Figure 2.
Since the axial stress varies considerably
around the girth weld due to the bending
stress, metallurgical replication results are very
sensitive to the selected circumferential
location. It is possible that creep damage no
greater than isolated cavities may exist 45
degrees from a creep crack. Therefore, it is
important to select metallurgical replica
locations based on damage from the
cumulative creep relaxed stress distribution.
Given the metallurgical results for the highest
ECD locations (including the correct
circumferential location and evaluation of all
of the HAZ in the replica for potential
microstructural creep damage), the
reexamination interval for isolated cavities
may be as much as 10 years. Without the
proper metallurgical evaluation of the highest
ECD locations, the justification for the next
reexamination interval has much less
certainty.
Case History Studies
Eighteen main steam or hot reheat piping
systems were evaluated in twelve fossil power
plants units using the HEPLC approach.
Isometric piping system models were
developed for the stress analyses based on the
TP114
available design documents. The baseline
evaluations (Phase 1) were the as-designed
stress analysis models. An example main
steam piping system isometric is shown in
Figure 3. It includes all major piping from the
superheat outlet header to the six turbine lead
connections. This isometric model is
sufficiently represented with about 100 nodes.
An as-designed stress analysis is used to
evaluate design compliance with the
ASME B31.1 Power Piping Code sustained
load and thermal expansion range stress
allowables. Dead weight and thermal
expansion hanger loads from the as-designed
stress analysis are commonly used to size
hangers. Thermal expansion displacements
from the as-designed stress analysis are
commonly used to predict pipe movements at
hanger locations to size hanger travel
requirements.
In each piping system evaluation, hot and
cold walkdowns (Phase 2) were performed to
characterize and evaluate the field conditions.
These walkdowns included the accessible
piping supports from the outlet headers to the
turbine connections. Observations were
documented regarding pipe sagging, major
insulation damage, structural steel damage,
piping interferences, deformed or broken
support components, hydraulic pipe restraint
fluid levels, and hanger travel anomalies. As
part of the walkdowns, thermal displacements,
were measured or estimated at selected
locations, such as at the supports, hangers,
guide clearances, penthouse penetrations, and
near the turbine connections. In many
instances, hanger position indicator readings
were documented with photographs.
The Phase 3 portion of each project was the
as-found stress analysis. These analyses were
performed to evaluate the revised stresses
from significant piping system thermal
displacement anomalies as compared to the
expected as-designed values. The as-
designed models were modified where
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.
5
necessary to account for field geometry
anomalies, hanger load modifications, hanger
anomalies, and piping interferences. The
process of simulating observed thermal
displacements in the as-found stress analysis is
discussed by Cohn (1989). The most
common modifications for all of the as-found
piping system models were adjusting the
thermal anchor displacements at the header
and turbine connections. However, there
were many instances where a hanger did not
displace as expected in the as-designed stress
analysis and appropriate model attributes
were adjusted to closely match the observed
piping displacements. As discussed by Cohn
and May (1996), limit stops were used as little
as necessary to minimize nonlinear stress
analysis errors.
An example of observed versus predicted as-
designed stress analysis displacements is
illustrated in Figure 4. The piping
displacement profile diagram for this as-
designed model shows that the expected
displacement at Location 7 is 4.2 inches
(107mm) more than the actual displacement.
The simulated thermal displacement for the
same piping system, without the use of limit
stops, is illustrated in Figure 5. The maximum
difference between the observed and the as-
found thermal displacement values is about
0.6 inch (15mm). In this case, the as-found
piping analysis (including the SL and SE
values) based on similar thermal
displacements are judged to be more accurate
for current conditions than the values from the
corresponding as-designed stress analysis.
Resulting loads from the as-found stress
analyses were evaluated to estimate
remaining lives (at specific nodal locations),
recommend reexamination intervals and
select NDE locations.
An HEP life management program should
include a one time 100% examination of all
weldments to establish a baseline of NDE
data. This baseline evaluation, which
TP114
captures all fabrication and service-related
defects and indications detectable by the
selected NDE procedures, could be phased
over several years. Lead-the-fleet defects
propagating over time can be predicted,
detected, and reexamined over time using the
stress analysis and NDE process as discussed
below.
Phase 4 of the project was the prioritization of
girth weldments. The program named
GIRTHLF was used to determine the
multiaxial stresses from when the unit initially
went online to the present. Creep life
consumption was estimated for each time step
to determine the cumulative life consumption
versus time at each selected node. Thus,
expected damage locations were prioritized
based on the cumulative life consumption of
the material over time, considering the
multiaxial stresses from dead weight, external
loads, internal pressure, and thermal
expansion loads. Prioritization results were
used to select the combined axial and
circumferential sites for local microstructural
evaluation using metallurgical replications.
Results
In addition to obtaining the as-found
sustained and thermal expansion stress ratios
for compliance to the Code, a ranking of
highest life consumption values was
determined for each piping system. Minimum
life expectancy (MLE) Rank 1 life
expectancy/MLE (i.e., Rank 1/MLE),
Rank 2/MLE, Rank 3/MLE, Rank 4/MLE, and
Rank 5/MLE for each piping system is
tabulated in Table 1. In twelve cases, the
fourth ranked location had more than 2.0
times the remaining life of the first ranked
location. Results of this table suggest that
lead-the-fleet expected damage sites can be
sufficiently selected for reexaminations with
four to six locations. In only one case
(Unit HH) was the Rank 5 location remaining
life less than 20% beyond the Rank 1
location.
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.
6
The number of conventional examination
locations (i.e., terminal locations, fitting welds,
and locations for maximum SL/Sh and SE/SA
values) is listed for each of the units in
Table 1. For these 18 piping systems, the
number of locations varied from 6 to 20.
The number of conventional locations
captured in the top ranked four, five, or six
HEPLC locations is also presented in this
table. The fewest captured locations is for
Unit AM, where none of the top four HEPLC
ranked locations was captured by the
conventional approach (i.e., none of the nine
conventionally selected locations for Unit AM
matched any of the top four ranked HEPLC
locations). In almost every case, at least one
of the top three ranked locations was not
captured by the conventional approach. The
exception is for Unit JH, where the 18
conventionally selected locations included all
of the top four ranked HEPLC locations.
Discussion of Results
The HEPLC methodology is intended to be
used for ranking purposes. Material
properties are conservatively assumed to have
values representative of a significantly
deteriorated condition. Field attributes, such
as greater wall thickness and nominal material
creep rupture properties, will result in much
less life consumption than the preliminary
prediction values. The author’s experience
has shown that the actual service damage is
less than predicted by the HEPLC approach
and selection of lead-the-fleet locations is a
robust methodology. For example, revised
information may significantly change the
quantitative values of life consumption, but
ranking order may not change because a
change in operational temperature or higher
wall thickness readings similarly influence all
of the weldments.
None of the conventional locations for
Unit AM matched the HEPLC top ranked
locations. In this case, some bottomed out
TP114
hangers modified the stress distribution
sufficiently to create maximum ECDs at the
top and bottom of the riser, with three of the
four locations distant from the bottomed out
hangers.
One of the most useful aspects of the HEPLC
approach allows the evaluation of remaining
life for different materials. As an example, the
creep relaxation curves for two high stress
nodes of the Unit IH piping system are
illustrated in Figure 6. Node 20B has SA 335
P22 material and Node 1325 has SA 335 P11
material. Throughout creep relaxation, the
latter node always has less stress than the
former node. However since creep rupture
strength of P11 material is considerably less
than P22 material, the life consumption
curves for the two nodes reveal that the P11
node has significantly more life consumption
than the P22 node, as shown in Figure 7.
Another outcome of the HEPLC approach is
that TFDs can be calculated with higher
accuracy because the simulation evaluation
provides higher confidence in the actual field
bending stresses. As illustrated in Figures 1
and 2, a difference of less than 2.0 ksi
(14MPa) can have a significant effect on TFD
results.
Conclusions
This study of 18 HEP systems compares girth
weld reexamination locations selected by the
conventional approach to locations selected
by the HEPLC methodology. The
conventional criteria was used to select high
damage locations by including those sites
which are the highest SL/Sh, highest SE/SA,
terminal points, and fitting weldments.
Alternatively, the HEPLC methodology was
used to predict the top four to six ranked
material damage locations based on the
evaluation of material life consumption.
It was determined that in almost every case, at
least one of the top three ranked HEPLC
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.
7
locations was not captured by the
conventional approach. In one case, none of
the 15 conventionally selected locations
matched any of the top three ranked HEPLC
locations. This leads to the concern that the
high ranked HEPLC locations not identified
by the conventional approach may have
service-related flaws leading to pipe failures as
weldments accumulate more than 100,000
operating hours.
Many conventionally selected locations can be
reexamined less frequently. In two cases, the
conventional approach resulted in 20
reexamination sites, while the HEPLC
approach resulted in four to six high priority
sites. The HEPLC methodology can provide
considerable cost savings to utilities because
of less scaffolding, insulation removal, and
examination costs. In addition, the
examination of fewer locations with more
allocated time per location will probably result
in higher quality examination results.
The study illustrates that the HEPLC
approach can account for different pipe and
weld materials, pipe geometries, and field
conditions. No more than six locations per
piping system were selected for
reexaminations, with high confidence that the
remaining locations will not have significant
service damage as compared to the selected
locations.
Since the HEPLC approach has high certainty
in a qualitative sense, few metallurgical
replicas can be performed. With the proper
metallurgical evaluation of the highest ECD
locations, there is higher confidence in the
justification of reexamination intervals. The
combination of the HEPLC process and
metallurgical replication can be used to
quantitatively substantiate reexamination
intervals beyond 5 years. This is a significant
improvement over the conventional process,
which may not provide justifiable
TP114
reexamination intervals beyond 2 or 3 years
for higher stressed girth welds.
References
American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
“Nuclear Case N-47-32, Class 1 Components
in Elevated Temperature Service, Section III,
Division I,” Cases of ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code (August 1994).
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Code for Pressure Piping, B31.1, 1995
Edition, Power Piping, New York.
Cohn, M.J., “Mathematical Simulation of
Thermal Displacements for a Steam Piping
System in the Material Creep Regime,”
Design and Analysis of Piping Components,
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference,
ASME PVP Vol. 169 (July 1989).
Cohn, M.J., “Remaining Life of High-Energy
Piping Systems Using Equivalent Stress,”
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.
8
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
Vol. 112 (August 1990).
Cohn, M.J., “Life Management of High
Energy Piping Girth Welds,” Plant
Systems/Components Aging Management,
ASME PVP Vol. 283 (June 1994).
Cohn, M.J., “Prediction of Creep Life
Exhaustion in High Energy Piping System
Girth Welds,” Fitness-for-Service and
Decisions for Petroleum and Chemical
Equipment, ASME/JSME PVP Vol. 315 (July
1995).
Cohn, M.J. and May, G.H., “Evaluation of
Limit Stop User Input Errors in Piping
Flexibility Analyses,” Integrity of Structures
and Fluid Systems, Hazardous Release
Protection, Piping and Pipe Supports, and
Pump and Valves, ASME PVP Vol. 333 (July
1996).
TP114
 Table 1
HEPLC STUDIES

MLE Conventional
Unit (1000 hrs) R1/MLE R2/MLE R3/MLE R4/MLE R5/MLE Locations Captured
AM 321 1.00 1.01 1.07 >4.00 --- 9 0/4
AH 447 1.00 1.06 1.11 1.27 1.31 11 1/5
BH 252 1.00 1.46 1.71 >4.00 --- 9 2/4
CH 148 1.00 2.64 3.16 3.80 3.87 6 2/5
DH 182 1.00 1.16 1.53 1.68 2.46 12 3/5
EH 388 1.00 1.03 1.04 2.00 3.12 10 2/5
FH 319 1.00 1.01 1.42 2.69 3.48 18 2/3
GM 283 1.00 1.01 1.06 1.75 1.81 20 3/6
GH 1000 1.00 1.02 1.04 2.59 --- 12 1/4
HM 617 1.00 1.40 1.65 1.73 --- 19 2/4
HH 682 1.00 1.05 1.08 1.11 1.18 13 2/5
IM 190 1.00 2.39 2.45 3.19 --- 7 2/4
IH 225 1.00 1.62 3.05 >4.00 --- 10 3/4
JM 201 1.00 1.26 2.07 3.94 --- 20 2/4
JH 93 1.00 2.80 >4.00 >4.00 >4.00 18 4/5
KM 152 1.00 1.26 >4.00 >4.00 --- 15 1/4
KH 215 1.00 1.00 1.60 2.10 --- 7 2/4
LM 239 1.00 2.20 2.25 >4.00 >4.00 8 2/5

Aptech Engineering Services, Inc. TP114

9
 Figure 1 — TFD for a Lower Stressed Main Steam Pipe Girth Weld.

Figure 2 — TFD for a Higher Stressed Main Steam Pipe Girth Weld.

Aptech Engineering Services, Inc. TP114

10
 Figure 3 — Isometric Model for the Unit JM Piping System.

Aptech Engineering Services, Inc. TP114

11
 Figure 4 — Observed Versus As-Designed Piping Displacements.

Figure 5 — Simulation of Observed Piping Displacements.

Aptech Engineering Services, Inc. TP114

12
 Figure 6 — Example Creep Relaxation Curves for Two Materials at Specified Model Nodes.

Figure 7 — Example of Consumption Curves for Two Materials at Specified Model Nodes.

Aptech Engineering Services, Inc. TP114

13