See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267610747

Risk-Based Inspection Applied to Main Steam and Hot Reheat Piping Systems

Conference Paper · January 2007

DOI: 10.1115/PVP2007-26375

CITATION READS
1 111

1 author:

Marvin Cohn, P.E., P.Eng., FASME

Intertek
48 PUBLICATIONS   106 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ranking of Creep Damage in Main Steam Piping System Girth Welds Considering Multiaxial Stress Ranges View project

NDE for Detection of Flow Accelerated Corrosion View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marvin Cohn, P.E., P.Eng., FASME on 22 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Risk-Based Inspection
Applied to Main Steam
and Hot Reheat Piping
Systems
TP174
July 2007

By
Marvin J. Cohn
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.

Proceedings of PVP2007 2007 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division

Conference July 22-26, 2007 San Antonio, Texas, PVP2007-26375
 Risk-Based Inspection Applied to
Main Steam and Hot Reheat Piping Systems
By Marvin J. Cohn
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.
ABSTRACT
Many utilities select critical welds in their main
steam (MS) and hot reheat (HRH) piping
systems by considering some combination of
design-based stresses, terminal point
locations, and fitting weldments. The
conventional methodology results in frequent
inspections of many low risk areas and the
neglect of some high risk areas. This paper
discusses the use of a risk-based inspection
(RBI) strategy to select the most critical
inspection locations, determine appropriate
reexamination intervals, and recommend the
most important corrective actions for the
piping systems.
The high energy piping life consumption
(HEPLC) strategy applies cost effective RBI
principles to enhance inspection programs for
MS and HRH piping systems. Using a top-
down methodology, this strategy is
customized to each piping system, considering
applicable effects, such as expected damage
mechanisms, previous inspection history,
operating history, measured weldment wall
thicknesses, observed support anomalies, and
actual piping thermal displacements.
This information can be used to provide more
realistic estimates of actual time–dependent
multiaxial stresses. Finally, the life
consumption estimates are based on realistic
weldment performance factors.
Risk is defined as the product of probability
and consequence. The HEPLC strategy
considers a more quantitative probability
assessment methodology as compared to
most RBI approaches. Piping stress and life
consumption evaluations, considering existing
APTECH
1
field conditions and inspection results, are
enhanced to reduce the uncertainty in the
quantitative probability of failure value for
each particular location and to determine a
more accurate estimate for future inspection
intervals. Based on the results of many
HEPLC projects, the author has determined
that most of the risk (regarding failure of the
pressure boundary) in MS and HRH piping
systems is associated with a few high priority
areas that should be examined at appropriate
intervals.
The author has performed many studies using
RBI principles for MS and HRH piping
systems over the past 15 years. This life
management strategy for MS and HRH critical
welds is a rational approach to determine
critical weldment locations for examinations
and to determine appropriate reexamination
intervals as a risk-based evaluation technique.
Both consequence of failure (COF) and
likelihood of failure (LOF) are considered in
this methodology. This paper also provides a
few examples of the application of this
methodology to MS and HRH piping systems.
NOMENCLATURE
The following nomenclature and acronyms
are used in this paper:
C = Material constant for LMP
D =Specified outside diameter of
pipe
P = Pressure
T = Time (hours)
tm = Specified minimum wall
thickness of pipe
T = Test temperature (Rankine)
σH = Hoop stress
TP174
 COF = Consequence of failure inspection projects have focused on detection
CRA = Comparative risk assessment and repairs. The HEPLC strategy shifts the
HEP = High energy piping methodology from detection and repairs to
HEPLC = high energy piping life prediction and prevention.
consumption
HRH = Hot reheat The conventional approach to choose critical
LMP = Larson-Miller parameter girth welds in MS and HRH piping systems
LOF = Likelihood of failure includes some combination of design-based
MS = Main steam stresses, terminal points, and fitting weldments
NWT = Nominal wall thickness subject to stress intensification [1-5]. This
OD = Outside diameter of pipe conventional methodology has not
PDP = Piping displacement profile substantially changed over the past 20 years.
RBI = Risk-based inspection
RHOH = Reheat outlet header Within the past decade, Tennessee Valley
SHOH = Superheat outlet header Authority (TVA) developed a different
TVA = Tennessee Valley Authority approach to prioritize their 24 seam welded
piping systems for examinations [6]. They
INTRODUCTION revised their as-designed piping stress
Power plant piping operated at high pressures analyses to consider the existing hanger
and high temperatures is typically described conditions, such as topped-out and bottomed-
as HEP. The MS and HRH piping systems out hangers. Based on the results of their
are included in this category. These piping revised ASME B31.1 Code piping stress
systems have a finite practical operating life analyses, system modifications were made
because of the continual accumulation of where necessary to restore each piping system
creep and fatigue damage. These two to Code requirements.
damage mechanisms may also combine
synergistically (creep/fatigue interaction) to The seam welds were separately prioritized
reduce the operating life well below life using the following strategy. A regression
predictions using creep or fatigue life analysis of base metal stress rupture data
calculations alone. While the probabilities of (multiple heats) was performed to determine
these failures are low, the major concerns in the mean curve and the standard error of the
older power stations are consequence based estimate for the applicable materials. For
and include the potential for catastrophic each data point, the time to rupture and test
failure, power plant personnel safety, and the temperature was used to determine the
potential for long-term outages. applicable Larson-Miller parameter value:

Since the catastrophic HEP seam weld failures
of Mohave (1985) and Monroe (1986),
electric power utilities have become more
interested in developing and implementing
examination and fitness-for service
evaluations of their HEP systems. As
summarized in Table 1, at least 31 failures or
substantial cracks in Grade 11 (1-1/4Cr
1/2Mo) and Grade 22 (2-1/4 Cr 1Mo) seam-
welds or clamshell welds have occurred from
1979 through 2000. Conventional utility
LMP = T ( C + log t ) (1)
A lower bound base metal curve was selected
as the 95 percent confidence band (i.e., 95
percent of the failure observations lie above
the minimum curve). The lower bound
weldment curve was estimated by reducing
the lower bound base metal curve 10% on
strength, accounting for reduced weldment
properties.

APTECH TP174
2
The hoop stress for each seam weld geometry
was calculated as:
σ H = P ( D − 0.8 t m ) / 2 t m (2)
where P was the “consistent design pressure.”
a value higher than the expected operating
pressure, but no greater than the specified
design pressure.
Subsequently, TVA plotted each of the σH
values with their respective design
temperature and operating hours on the log
stress vs. LMP figure. The seam welds were
ranked in comparison to the distance from the
threshold lower bound weldment curve.
As an alternative to the conventional industry
approaches, a HEPLC methodology has been
used by the author to prioritize material
damage locations based on applicable
damage mechanisms, realistic multiaxial
stresses, and weldment life consumption
evaluations. This methodology is customized
to each piping system, considering applicable
affects, such as operating history, measured
weldment wall thicknesses, observed support
anomalies, and actual piping thermal
displacements.
The HEPLC methodology has been
incorporated into an RBI process, evaluating
COFs and LOFs. A semi-quantitative
illustration of the risk matrix for MS and HRH
piping systems is presented in Figure 1. As
discussed below, there are three distinct COF
categories and as many as five LOF
categories. The various combinations of the
COF and LOF categories can be used to
reveal the highest risk in the upper left corner
and the lowest risk in the bottom right corner.
The ASME Code has provided no mandatory
or nonmandatory rules for the calculation of
life consumption in MS and HRH piping
systems, subject to creep and fatigue damage
in weldments. Therefore, the innovative life
APTECH
3
consumption methodologies discussed in this
paper are not ASME Code approved
techniques to predict remaining lives for MS
and HRH piping system girth and seam welds.
HEPLC METHODOLOGY
The HEPLC methodology has three basic
phases: data collection, evaluation, and
recommendations. The data collection phase
includes obtaining information on design and
post construction piping and supports. Effects
of current anomalies are considered in the
prioritization of critical examination locations.
Furthermore, results of the examinations at
the most critical locations are used to
determine the degree of material damage
specific to each location.
A typical list of design data to be collected is
provided in Table 2. These eight items are
typically used as a basis for the as-designed
piping stress analyses, for compliance to the
applicable code, and for prediction of pipe
thermal expansion displacements.
A typical list of post construction piping
system data collected for an HEPLC program
is provided in Table 3. Some of these data
are readily available, such as cumulative
operating hours, number of startups, normal
pressures and temperatures, recent walkdown
records, recent nondestructive examination
records, recent transient events, and recent
weld repairs. Other items may not exist, such
as piping and weldment measured wall
thicknesses, thermocouple data, older hanger
adjustments, and older weld repairs. The
weld reinforcement and counterbore profiles
are particularly important for the evaluation of
highest ranked HEPLC locations. This post
construction information is implemented in
the as-found piping stress analyses, life
consumption evaluations, and the overall life
management evaluations.
TP174
RANKING COFS
For HEP systems, the COFs are separated
into three distinct categories: seam-weld
failures, clamshell weld failures, and girth weld
failures. Subcategories could also be
evaluated, such as the pipe location (a high or
low personnel traffic area) and pipe size (main
run, vent line, or drain line). Seam-weld
failures (straight or bent spools) can be
catastrophic in nature, as has been observed
in Table 1 Incidents 1, 13, 14, 22, and 29.
These failures typically have high economic
costs.
Clamshell elbow failures can be serious, but
have not been as catastrophic in nature as
seam-weld failures. In Table 1, the
Incidents 2, 3, 5, 8, and 18 resulted in
relatively less damage and shorter shutdowns
as compared to the classic seam-weld failures.
Because the length of propagation is limited,
clamshell elbow failures have had lower
consequences than seam-weld failures. These
failures typically have high economic costs. If
seamed pipe and clamshell elbows exist in the
same piping system, it is common for the
clamshell elbows to fail prior to the seam
welds because the intrados hoop stress on a
clamshell elbow is greater than the hoop stress
in the seamed pipe.
As demonstrated by many MS and HRH girth
weld failures, they tend to be leak-before-
break. Although serious, they have not been
catastrophic in nature and typically have
relatively medium economic costs.
RANKING LOFS FOR SEAM AND CLAM
SHELL WELDS
Since 1999, the basic methodology for
prioritization of seam and clamshell welds
used by the author is CRA. The author has
collected seam and clamshell weld failure (or
near failure) data for Grades 11 and 22
materials. For each incident, the time and
estimated operating temperature is used to
determine the applicable LMP value. The
APTECH
4
estimated average operating pressure, pipe
diameter, and pipe thickness were used to
determine a normalized hoop stress (a near
mid-wall location using the Lamé equation
[7], optimized for minimum data scatter).
Then, the normalized hoop stress was plotted
against the LMP value for each of the
historical incidents, as illustrated in Figure 2.
For Grade 11 material, a value of 20 was
selected for the LMP material constant, C. A
lower bound threshold of seamed pipe/elbow
failures (or near failures) was drawn through
the lowest data points. The mean and
minimum stress rupture curves of base metal
creep rupture failures [8 and 9] are also
illustrated in Figure 2. Finally, the data points
for the applicable seam or clamshell welds are
also plotted in Figure 2.
In this case, the pipe material is Grade 11
(A387 Gr C), and the unit had already
operated for 200,000 hours. Figure 2
illustrates that the 19-1/4 inch pipe can
operate at least another 200,000 hours before
intersecting the threshold line of historical
seamed pipe/elbow failures. The 27-inch pipe
can operate substantially more than 200,000
hours before intersecting the threshold of
historical seamed pipe/elbow failures. Both of
these seam-welded piping system examples
have relatively low LOF values.
The CRA evaluation indicates that if this unit
is operated in the future as in the past, this
unit can operate for several more decades
before the seam-welds will have indications of
creep damage. Nevertheless, it is
recommended that the seam-welds be
examined one time to reveal any substantial
fabrication defects. The one-time
examination will also provide the actual seam-
weld wall thickness, which can be used to
fine-tune the applied hoop stress. In addition,
the high traffic areas should have seam-weld
evaluations periodically to confirm that there
are no substantial indications.
TP174
In several of the author’s projects it has been
found that the normal operating conditions
(temperature and/or pressure) are
substantially below the design conditions. In
such cases, the CRA evaluations have
frequently indicated decades of operation (if
operated in the future the same as in the past)
prior to further concern of pressure boundary
failure.
METHODOLOGY – RANKING LOFS FOR
GIRTH WELDS
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
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
analyses. Simulation of observed piping
displacements and conditions results in more
realistic estimates of current stresses. These
post construction phenomena are evaluated
in a HEPLC program.
A comparison of the conventional
methodology results to the highest ranked
HEPLC locations was discussed in 1997 [10].
In a review of 18 MS and HRH piping
systems, the conventional industry approach
resulted in the selection of 6 to 20 critical
welds for each of the 18 piping systems.
However, in almost every case, at least one of
the top three ranked HEPLC locations was
not captured by the conventional approach.
The one exception was a piping system with
18 conventionally selected locations.
A comparison of the Code [11] results to
observed creep damage concluded that there
is poor correlation between Code high stress
locations and observed creep damage [12,
13]. This poor correlation is at least partly
due to the fact that the conventional
APTECH
5
approaches for selecting critical locations lack
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 in
the design
„ Improperly functioning hangers (e.g.,
topped-out or bottomed-out) [12]
„ 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
As compared to the conventional approaches
of selecting critical examination locations, the
HEPLC methodology considers the above
important issues and has successfully
predicted material creep/fatigue damage in
girth welds of MS piping systems [12-15].
These papers demonstrate that the predictive
approach of this methodology is very cost
effective.
DOCUMENTATION OF PIPING SYSTEM
ANOMALIES
The piping system hot and cold walkdowns
are more than hanger walkdowns. In addition
to assessing the conditions of hangers and
supports, all piping deformation, piping
interferences, and observed system anomalies
are documented. It is also prudent to include
the first few supports of drain lines, auxiliary
steam lines, and extraction lines in the
walkdowns.
TP174
Cold walkdowns should be performed every 2
to 3 years (during a scheduled outage). Hot
walkdowns should be performed within a
month prior to the same scheduled outage. If
hanger adjustments are implemented, a cold
walkdown should be performed after the
offline adjustments, and a hot walkdown
should be performed within 6 months after
startup to document any possible hanger
migration.
PIPING STRESS ANALYSES
An as-designed piping stress analysis should
be performed to evaluate compliance to the
applicable ASME B31.1 Code. This analysis
is based on the specified design data (Table 2)
and may not accurately represent the field
conditions.
Evaluation of hot and cold walkdown results
frequently reveals that the pipe displacements
at hanger locations can be 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 improve 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 MS piping system. The MS piping
system isometric, from the SHOH to the two
turbine connections, is illustrated in Figure 3.
There are 15 support locations for this piping
system. At each support location, the vertical
displacements are illustrated in a PDP
diagram. The as-designed PDP, indicating
the observed and as-designed piping stress
APTECH
6
analysis predicted displacements, is illustrated
in Figure 4. 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 5.
In this case, the analysis vs. observation
support displacements are in better
agreement.
POSTPROCESSING OF PIPING
ANALYSIS RESULTS
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 Lamé
equations [7] 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 [16] 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.
For low alloy ferritic steels, the stress
redistribution from the elastic to inelastic
stresses is estimated using the Norton
equation [17] and the maximum principal
stress failure criterion. Applicable values for
the empirically derived coefficients are based
on experimental results for the appropriate
material and temperature range. This
approach to relax the applied stresses is based
TP174
on uniaxial testing results. Uniaxial stresses
are adjusted to multiaxial stress conditions by
using the ASME Code Case N47-32 [18].
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 [19] 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 is ranked for possible
fatigue damage, considering the as-found
thermal expansion multiaxial stresses.
MAIN STEAM PIPING SYSTEM AT
CHOLLA 2
This piping system was evaluated during a
Spring 1999 scheduled overhaul [13]. It
began commercial operation in 1978 and had
accumulated 158,000 operating hours by the
end of 1998.
The piping system has a design pressure of
2150 psig and typically operates at 1800 psig.
The design temperature is 1015ºF and the
effective operating temperature ranges from
995ºF to 1002ºF.
The piping base metal is specified as ASTM
SA335-P22 (seamless pipe) and the weld
metal is specified as ASME SFA 5.5 E9018-
B3. There are three pipe sizes: 19-inch OD
by 2.50-inch NWT, 15-inch OD by 2.00-inch
NWT, and 8.63 inch OD by 1.55-inch NWT.
An isometric of the piping system from the
SHOH to the turbine connections is illustrated
APTECH
7
in Figure 6. The hot and cold walkdowns
revealed that Hanger MSH-2 was topped-out
offline and Hanger MSH-12 was bottomed-
out off-line.
Both as-designed 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.
Step-by-step details of the HEPLC
methodology applied to this piping system,
including all applicable Microsoft® Excel
calculations, were presented at the ASME
PVP conference in Vancouver, BC (August
2002). The HEPLC evaluation indicated that
two MS welds were near end of life (Welds A
and B in Figure 6). Both welds were
examined and had significant OD cracks. The
circumferential crack of Weld A (the SHOH
nozzle connection) is shown in Figure 7. Four
additional welds (Welds C through F in Figure
6), 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, with an allowable
stress of 7.62 ksi. This node was ranked 29 as
a sustained load in the as-designed stress
analysis. However, the HEPLC as-found
effective weldment stress (considering
malfunctioning supports) at the time of the
examination (160,000 hours) was 11.14 ksi at
Weld A, substantially greater than the as-
designed Code stress.
TP174
Because of the malfunctioning hangers, the
HEPLC evaluation indicated substantial stress
variations among the ranked weldments. A
summary of the predicted multiaxial stresses
at 160,000 hours for Welds A through F is
provided in Table 4. It should be noted that
Welds E and F had stresses 82% and 81% of
the maximum stress (about 2 ksi below the
maximum stress), respectively. The lowest
stress weld was estimated to be 56% of the
maximum stress.
The combination of low thermal expansion
stresses and relatively low thermal cycles
indicated that the contribution of fatigue
damage was not as important as creep
damage in this particular 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.
HOT REHEAT PIPING SYSTEM
This piping system was evaluated during a
Fall 2004 scheduled overhaul. It began
commercial operation in 1973 and had
accumulated almost 200,000 operating hours
by the end of 2003.
The HRH piping system has a design pressure
of 575 psig and typically operates at 430 psig.
An integrated average temperature of 455
psig was used for the evaluation. The design
temperature is 955ºF and the effective
operating temperature ranges from 940ºF to
950ºF. In recent years this unit has had few
thermal cycles, with less than 10 cold or warm
starts per year.
The piping base metal is specified as ASTM
A155, Class 1 (1-1/4%Cr) (seamed pipe).
There are nine long radius elbows, specified
as ASTM A234, Grade WP11, with intrados
and extrados seams. There are two pipe
sizes: 27-inch OD by 0.9375-inch NWT, and
19.25-inch OD by 0.625-inch NWT.
APTECH
8
An isometric of the piping system welds, from
the RHOH to the turbine connections, is
illustrated in Figure 8. The hot walkdown
revealed that two hangers were bottomed-out.
The cold walkdown revealed that three
hangers were bottomed-out and one hanger
was topped-out.
The as-designed piping stress analysis for this
piping system revealed that the sustained load
and thermal expansion stresses are in
compliance with the 1967 and 2001 ASME
B31.1 Code stress allowables. The specified
minimum wall thickness values are in
compliance with the 1967 ASME Code, but
do not satisfy the 2001 ASME B31.1 Code
requirements (wall thickness values are in
compliance for the maximum operating
temperatures). The as-found sustained load
stresses satisfy the 2001 Code. At four
locations, the as-found thermal expansion
stresses exceed the 2001 Code requirements.
The specific risk matrix for this piping system
is illustrated in Figure 9. A previous
examination of all of the HRH piping seam
welds revealed no significant indications. As
discussed above, the consequence of a seam
weld failure is “very high.” However, the
evaluation of the 19-1/4-inch pipe seam welds
indicated an additional 200,000 operating
hours of remaining life, as shown in Figure 2
(a “low” LOF rank). These seam welds are
designated as L13 through L18 in Figures 8
and 9.
The evaluation of the 27-inch pipe seam
welds indicated substantially more than
200,000 operating hours of remaining life, as
shown in Figure 2 (a “very low” LOF rank).
These seam welds are designated as L1
through L12 in Figures 8 and 9.
The consequence of clam shell elbow failures
is less severe than longitudinal seam weld
failures, so they are designated as “high” COF
TP174
rank. Since the remaining lives of seamed
elbows are slightly less than longitudinal
seams, the probabilities are slightly greater.
The clam shell elbow welds are designated as
E1 through E9 in Figures 8 and 9.
The consequence of girth weld failures is
typically less than clam shell elbow failures, so
they are designated as “medium” COF rank.
The remaining lives of girth welds 23E and
23W (the two turbine connections) are only a
few years, so they have a “very high” LOF
rank. The remaining life of girth weld 17E
(the east leg weld of the wye fitting) is within a
decade, so it has a “high” LOF rank. The
remaining lives of girth welds 1, 2, and 3 are
10 to 20 years, so they have a “medium”
LOF rank. The remaining 24 girth welds have
predicted lives greater than the top 6 ranked
locations.
As discussed above, seam welds in high
personnel traffic areas should be periodically
examined as an extra precaution.
ESTIMATED MATERIAL PROPERTY
VARIATIONS
A log stress vs. LMP evaluation of creep
rupture data for 2-1/4Cr-1Mo normalized and
tempered plates was performed to consider
creep rupture material property variations
[15]. Since all of the piping is operated for
the same time and approximately the same
temperature, the variation in creep damage at
the selected weldments is primarily dependent
upon the applied stress. Within the stress
range of 3.8 ksi to 12 ksi, it was determined
that there is no more than 8% variation in
stress (at the same LMP value) for the same
heat of material and no more than 14%
variation in stress from the weakest to
strongest heats of material.
Regarding the seamed pipe/elbow failure
prediction evaluations, it is noted that each
reported failure (or near failure) incident is
likely the weakest link of 10 to 30 pipe spools
APTECH
9
or several elbows in that particular piping
system. Consequently, the lower bound
threshold line of the seven failures or near
failures in Figure 2 very likely includes the
field testing of more than 20 pipe spools and
elbows. Therefore, this minimum threshold
line could be considered as representing the
near-minimum stress rupture properties for 1-
1/4Cr 1/2Mo seam-welded pipe and clamshell
elbows.
Regarding the girth weld failure prediction
evaluations, it was determined that the creep
strength property variations among heats
varied less than 15% [15]. The author’s 1996
paper regarding the ranking of critical stress
locations revealed that a comparison of the
fifth ranked to first ranked location had at
least a 20% variation in applied stress.
Therefore, as long as the prioritized girth
welds have a stress variation greater than
20%, the selected locations of predicted creep
damage would govern the possibility of
material property variations.
DISCUSSION
This paper describes a viable RBI
methodology that has been implemented for
MS and HRH piping systems. The
conventional methodologies result in frequent
examinations of many low risk areas and the
neglect of some high risk areas. Over the past
15 years, the HEPLC projects 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 methodologies, the HEPLC
methodology is more applicable to select
critical welds subject to creep/fatigue damage.
TP174
This suggested RBI methodology has
successfully prioritized and predicted material
creep/fatigue damage of girth welds in three
piping systems [15]. Results of the three case
studies provide more credibility to this RBI
approach.
The suggested RBI methodology can result in
substantially different stresses and rankings of
critical weldments as compared to the
conventional as-designed piping stress
analyses, which are used to satisfy Code
requirements. The implementation of this
methodology for many MS and HRH piping
systems has minimized the number of critical
examination locations while improving the
confidence level for life management
programs. This comprehensive RBI strategy
has been used for seam-welds, clamshell
welds, and girth welds. A comparison of
creep rupture property variations to estimated
weldment stresses indicates that examinations
of the top four or five ranked circumferential
welds would envelop the expected variations
in material properties.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a need to develop and apply an RBI
methodology as part of a life management
process in the selection of critical HEP welds.
The conventional Code guidelines (Code
equations and as-designed piping stress
analyses) do not adequately address the
influence of post construction anomalies and
cumulative time-dependent creep/fatigue life
consumption. This paper suggests an RBI
methodology that predicts more accurate
material damage rankings as compared to the
conventional Code results and other
conventional industry methods. To provide
additional credibility for this methodology, the
author has presented previous technical
papers that show implementation of this
approach has successfully predicted the most
critical locations of creep/fatigue damage of
circumferential weldments in three MS piping
systems.
APTECH
10
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The support of Aptech Engineering Services,
Inc. is greatly appreciated and acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] Tynan, T.C., Dempsey, P. E., and
Damon, J. E., 1986, “Life Extension of High
Energy Piping Systems,” 86-JPGC-Pwr-53,
ASME/IEEE Power Generation Conference,
Portland, Oregon.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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 Antonio,
Texas.
[5] Galpin, D. S., Clark, M. D., 1987,
“Critical Piping Inspection,” Association of
Rural Electrical Generating Cooperatives,
Montrose, Colorado.
[6] Azzazy, S. E., Gateley, R. A., and
Roberts, B. W., 2000, “A Review of Issues
Related to the Replacement of Seam Welded
High Temperature Reheat Piping,” Aging
Management, Component and Piping
Analysis, Nondestructive Engineering,
Monitoring and Diagnostics, PVP-409, ASME
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference,
Seattle, WA, pp. 57-68.
[7] Lamé 1852, “Lecons sur la théorie …
de l’élasticité,” Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
TP174
[8] NRIM, 1994, “Data Sheets on the
Elevated-Temperature Properties of
Normalized and Tempered 1¼Cr-½Mo-Si
Steel Plates for Boilers and Pressure Vessels
(SCMV 3-NT),” NRIM Creep Data Sheet No.
21B, National Research Institute for Metals,
Tokyo, Japan.
[9] NIMS, 2001, “Data Sheets on the
Elevated-Temperature Properties of 1¼Cr-
½Mo-Si Steel Tubes for Boilers and Heat
Exchangers (STBA 23),” NRIM Creep Data
Sheet No. 2B, National Institute for Materials
Science, Japan
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 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
APTECH
11
Conference, PVP-439, Pressure Vessels and
Piping Codes and Standards, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada pp. 83-88.
[14] Cohn, M. J., 2006 “A Strategy for Life
Management of Main Steam and Hot Reheat
Piping Systems,” EPRI International
Conference on Advances in Condition and
Remaining Life Assessment for Fossil Power
Plants, Louisville, Kentucky.
[15] Cohn, M. J., 2006 “Life Management
Projects for Three Main Steam Piping
Systems,” EPRI International Conference on
Advances in Condition and Remaining Life
Assessment for Fossil Power Plants, Louisville,
Kentucky.
[16] 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.
[17] Norton, F. H., 1929, Creep of Steel at
High Temperatures, McGraw-Hill, New York,
p.67.
[18] 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.
[19] 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.
TP174
 Table 1
INCIDENTS OF SEAMED PIPE/ELBOW FAILURES
OR NEAR FAILURES – 1979 THROUGH 2000

Incident Date Operating Operating Operating Diameter Material

Hrs Temp (F) Press (psig) (In)
1 Jul-79 129,000 1,000 480 20.0 A387 GrC
2 Sep-82 70,700 1,005 600 30.0 A234WP11
3 Nov-82 71,800 1,005 600 30.0 A234WP11
4 1982 87,000 ~1,000 630 24.0 A234WP11
5 Jan-83 72,800 1,005 600 30.0 A234WP11
6 1983 82,000 ~1,000 630 20.0 A234WP11
7 Jul-83 82,000 ~1,000 630 25.8 A234WP22
8 Dec-83 80,000 1,005 600 30.0 A234WP11
9 Jan-84 93,000 ~1,000 630 24.0 A234WP22
10 1984 187,000 1,055 2,670 20.0 A387 GrD
11 Mar-85 87,000 1,005 600 30.0 A234WP11
12 Apr-85 87,000 1,005 600 30.0 A234WP11
13 Jun-85 88,000 1,005 600 30.0 A387 GrC
14 Jan-86 97,261 1,000 730 32.0 A387 GrD
15 May-86 186,641 1,050 400 18.0 A387 GrD
16 1986 101,000 1,000 600 30.0 A387 GrC
17 1986 172,500 1,000 470 18.0 A387 GrC
18 Jul-86 142,000 1,000 1,800 12.8 A234WP22
19 Oct-86 173,916 1,050 400 27.5 A387 GrD
20 1987 80,000 1,000 720 36.0 A387 GrD
21 Fall 1990 153,400 1,000 2,640 16.0 A387 GrD
22 May-92 212,000 1,000 480 20.0 A387 GrC
23 Sep-92 168,000 1,000 2,640 16.0 A387 GrD
Spring
24 1993 173,000 1,000 2,640 20.0 A387 GrB
A 691 1-
25 1993 100,000 990 160 36.0 1/4Cr
26 1993 149,000 1,050 515 27.6 A387 GrD
27 1993 125,000 ~1,000 3,625 18.0 A387 GrD
28 1994 278,000 1,005 2,300 14.1 A234WP11
29 Jun-96 190,000 1,000 2,640 20.0 A387 GrB
30 Aug-98 200,000 1,005 2,500 18.0 A387 GrD
31 Nov-99 198,000 1,000 2,500 20.3 A387 GrD

APTECH TP174
12
 Table 2

DESIGN DATA COLLECTED FOR AN HEPLC PROGRAM

Item Information
1 Piping System Layout and Spool Drawings
2 Shop and Field Weld Locations and Designations
3 Hanger Drawings, Including Loads, Total Travel, and Design Travel
4 Fitting and Valve Drawings and Weights
5 Insulation Material and Thickness
6 Piping Material Specifications
7 Piping Diameters, Nominal Wall Thicknesses, and Minimum Wall Thicknesses
8 Piping System Design Temperature and Pressure

Table 3

POST CONSTRUCTION DATA COLLECTED FOR AN HEPLC PROGRAM

Item Information
1 Total Cumulative Operating Hours
2 Piping and Weldment Measured Wall Thicknesses
3 Mode of Operation, Including the Number of Cold, Warm and Hot Start-ups
4 Piping System Maximum Temperatures and Pressures
5 Piping System Normal Temperatures and Pressures
6 Thermocouple Data (Steady State, Transients, and Ramp Rates)
7 Piping System Hot and Cold Walkdown Data
8 History of Hanger Field Adjustments (Travel and Load Adjustments)
9 Additional or Missing Supports
10 Support Repairs and Modifications
11 Movement Indicator Measurements
12 Weld Repairs and Replacements
13 Nondestructive Examination Records and a Summary of Significant Indications
14 Damage to Insulation and Lagging
15 Damage to Support Structures
16 History of Severe Transient Events and Excursions (Off-design Transients)

Table 4

CHOLLA 2 MAIN STEAM PIPING SYSTEM – RANKED WELDMENTS VS. EFFECTIVE STRESS

Rank Effective Stress % of Maximum

(ksi) Stress
1 11.14 100.0
2 11.12 99.8
3 9.75 87.5
4 9.66 86.7
5 9.18 82.4
6 9.00 80.8
Last 6.28 56.4

APTECH TP174
13
 Likelihood Rank

1 2 3 4 5

1
Consequence Rank

(Seam- Highest
weld Risk
Failure)
2
(Clamshell
Weld
Failure)
3 Lowest
(Girth weld
Risk
Failure)

Figure 1 — Risk Matrix for Main Steam and Hot Reheat Piping Systems.

Figure 2 — Stress Rupture Properties for 1-1/4Cr – 1/2Mo Material.

APTECH TP174
14
 Figure 3 — MS Piping System Isometric.

APTECH TP174
15
 3
Observed
2
Designed
lacement (Inches)

1
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

Figure 4 — MS As-Designed PDP.

2
Observed
Simulated
Displacement (Inches)

1
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 5 — MS As-Found PDP.

APTECH TP174
16
 Figure 6 — Isometric of Cholla 2 MS Piping System.

APTECH TP174
17
 Figure 7 — Cholla 2, Weldment Location A - Propagating Creep Crack.

Figure 8 — HRH Piping System – Weld Designations.

APTECH TP174
18
 Likelihood Rank

Very Very
High Medium Low
High Low

L13 L1
Very through through
High
Consequence

L18 L12
Rank

E1
High through
E9

23E &
Medium 23W
17E 1, 2, & 3

Figure 9 — Specific Risk Matrix for a Hot Reheat Piping System.

APTECH TP174
19
Business Units:
Power Generation Services
Nuclear Power Services
Petrochemical Oil & Gas
Forensic Engineering
Industrial Engineering

Headquarters:
601 West California Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086-4831
408.745.7000 Fax 408.734.0445
www.aptecheng.com
Mailing: PO Box 3440
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3440
Offices:
16100 Cairnway Drive, Suite 310 139, 11215 Jasper Avenue
Houston, TX 77084-3597 Edmonton, Alberta T5K 0L5
Phone: 832.593.0550 Canada
Fax: 832.593.0551 Phone: 780.669.2869
Toll Free: 800.568.3201 Fax: 780.669.2509
www.aptechtexas.com www.aptechtexas.com

APTECH
View publication stats