ASME STP PT 089 2020
$98.04
ASME STP-PT-089 – 2020 Creep-Fatigue Flaw Growth Analysis to Support Elevated Temperature Flaw Size Acceptance Criteria
Published By | Publication Date | Number of Pages |
ASME | 2020 | 112 |
Creep fatigue-crack growth analyses using the EDF R5 V4/5, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, and EPRI BLESS methodologies are carried out in an interative fashion on four components: superheater tube and pipe, and reheater tube and pipe. Three materials (Grade 22, Grade 91 and SS 304H) are considered and twelve flaw configerations, which varied in orientation, location and geometry. The scope of the work is to calculate the largest initial flaw size for each case that satisfies the specified transient operating conditions: temperature, pressure, time, and cycles. The stresses are calculated via transient finite element analyses and software is developed to apply the three fracture mechanics methodologies. Extensive unit-testing is implemented to verify the codes and several hand calculations are done and included in the report. The results are compared in tabulated format and conclusions are drawn.
PDF Catalog
PDF Pages | PDF Title |
---|---|
4 | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
8 | FOREWORD |
9 | ABSTRACT |
10 | 1 SCOPE |
11 | 2 INPUTS 2.1 Configurations Tables Table 2-1. Components with Dimensions and Loading in Imperial and SI Units |
12 | 2.2 Flaw Configuration Table 2-2. Flaw Configurations and Numbering |
13 | Figures Figure 2-1. Flaw #1: Inside Surface Crack, Circumferential Direction, Infinite Length Figure 2-2. Flaw #2: Inside Surface Crack, Circumferential Direction, Semi-Elliptical Shape Figure 2-3. Flaw #3: Outside Surface Crack, Circumferential Direction, Infinite Length |
14 | Figure 2-4. Flaw #4: Outside Surface Crack, Circumferential Direction, Semi-Elliptical Shape Figure 2-5. Flaw #5: Embedded Crack, Circumferential Direction, Infinite Length Figure 2-6. Flaw #6: Embedded Crack, Circumferential Direction, Semi-Elliptical Shape |
15 | Figure 2-7. Flaw #7: Inside Surface Crack, Longitudinal Direction, Infinite Length Figure 2-8. Flaw #8: Inside Surface Crack, Longitudinal Direction, Semi-Elliptical Shape Figure 2-9. Flaw #9: Outside Surface Crack, Longitudinal Direction, Infinite Length |
16 | Figure 2-10. Flaw #10: Outside Surface Crack, Longitudinal Direction, Semi-Elliptical Shape Figure 2-11. Flaw #11: Embedded Crack, Longitudinal Direction, Infinite Length Figure 2-12. Flaw #12 Embedded Crack, Longitudinal Direction, Semi-Elliptical Shape |
17 | 2.3 Analysis Methods 2.4 Units 2.5 Modeling Approach 2.6 Geometry |
18 | 2.7 Boundary and Initial Conditions Figure 2-13. Geometry Modelling Approach |
19 | 2.8 Loading Conditions Figure 2-14. Models’ Constraining and Initial Conditions for Axisymmetric Model |
20 | Table 2-3. Normalized Transient Temperature Conditions in [°F/°F] for all Start Up Cycles |
21 | Table 2-4. Normalized Transient Temperature Conditions in [°C/°C] for all the Cold Start Cycle |
22 | Table 2-5. Normalized Transient Temperature Conditions in [°C/°C] for all the Warm Start Cycle Table 2-6. Normalized Transient Temperature Conditions in [°C/°C] for all the Hot Start Cycle |
23 | Table 2-7. Normalized Transient Temperature Conditions in [°F/°F] for all the Shutdown Cycles Table 2-8. Normalized Transient Temperature Conditions in [°C/°C] for all the Shutdown Cycles Tube Components Table 2-9. Normalized Transient Temperature Conditions in [°C/°C] for all the Shutdown Cycles Pipe Components |
24 | Table 2-10. Normalized Transient Pressure Conditions in for all Start Up Cycles Table 2-11. Normalized Transient Pressure Conditions in for all Shut Down Cycles |
25 | Figure 2-15. Applied Loading Conditions |
26 | 2.9 Operational Life and Load Cycles |
27 | Figure 2-16. Modulus of Elasticity as a Function of Temperature [4] Figure 2-17. Density as a Function of Temperature [4] Table 2-12. Material Utilized in the Analyses |
28 | Figure 2-18. Thermal Diffusivity as a Function of Temperature [4] Figure 2-19. Thermal Conductivity as a Function of Temperature [4] |
29 | Figure 2-20. Specific Heat Capacity as a Function of Temperature Figure 2-21. Mean Coefficient of Thermal Expansion as a Function of Temperature. Reference Temperature = 20 °C [4] |
30 | 3 STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS 3.1 Finite Element Modeling Strategy Figure 3-1. Typical Finite Element Model and Mesh Density |
31 | 3.2 Stress Analysis Results and Stress Linearization Figure 3-2. S22 (Longitudinal) and S33 (Hoop) Stress at the Inner, Middle, and Outer Location through the Thickness Plotted versus Time for SHT_Gr22 and the Cold Start Up Cycle |
32 | Figure 3-3. Stress Distribution through the Thickness for SHT_Gr22 at Approximately 50%, 75% and End of the Cold Start Up Cycle in the Axial (Left) and Hoop (Right) Directions |
33 | 3.3 Transient Heat Transfer and Stress Analyses Figure 3-4. S22 (Longitudinal) and S33 (Hoop) Stress at The Inner, Middle, and Outer Location through the Thickness Plotted Versus Time for RHT_Gr22 and the Cold Start Up Cycle, Steady State Solution |
34 | Figure 3-5. S22 (Longitudinal) and S33 (Hoop) Stress at the Inner, Middle, and Outer Location through the Thickness Plotted versus Time for RHT_Gr22 and the Cold Start Up Cycle, Transient Solution Figure 3-6. S22 (Longitudinal) and S33 (Hoop) Stress at the Inner, Middle, and Outer Location through the Thickness Plotted versus Time for SHP_Gr22 and the Cold Start Up Cycle, Steady State Solution |
35 | Figure 3-7. Temperature at the Inner and Outer Point through the Thickness and Average Temperature (Left) and Temperature Difference between Inner and Outer Points for SHP_Gr22 and the Cold Start Up Cycle, Transient Solution Figure 3-8. S22 (Longitudinal) And S33 (Hoop) Stress at the Inner, Middle, And Outer Location through the Thickness Plotted versus Time for SHP_Gr22 and the Cold Start Up Cycle. Transient Solution |
36 | Figure 3-9. Axial Stress Distribution through Time at Selected Points through the Thickness (Top) and Applied Temperature at Inner Surface through Time Distribution for Comparison |
37 | 3.4 Implementation Validation |
38 | Figure 3-10. Dimensions and Boundary Conditions for Simplified Heat Transfer Model |
39 | Figure 3-11. Longitudinal and Hoop Stresses at the Inner and Outer Location through the Thickness Plotted versus Time for SHP_Gr22 and the Cold Start Up Cycle for Transient Solution |
41 | 4 ASSUMPTIONS 4.1 American Petroleum Institute (API) 579-1 / ASME FFS-1 4.2 Electricite de France (EDF) Recommended Procedure R5 V4/5 |
43 | 4.3 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Boiler Life Evaluation and Simulation System (BLESS) |
44 | 5 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES 5.1 Dissection of loading condition into loading cycles for analyses Figure 5-1. First 30 Entries of Cycle List of Equation 5-2 |
45 | 5.2 Convergence criterion to find ac 5.3 American Petroleum Institute (API) 579-1 / ASME FFS-1 |
47 | Figure 5-2. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 Methodology Applied in an Iterative Fashion |
48 | Table 5-1. Sources for Material Properties as Allowed by API 579-1 |
49 | Table 5-2. Flaw Configurations and Corresponding Reference Stress Solution |
53 | 5.4 Electricite de France (EDF) Recommended Procedure R5 V4/5 |
55 | Figure 5-3. R5 V4/5 Methodology Applied in an Iterative Fashion |
56 | Table 5-3. Sources for Material Properties as Allowed by R5 V4/5 |
57 | Table 5-4. Sources for Creep Rupture Data for All Materials |
59 | Table 5-5. Creep Crack Growth Data from BS 7910 [13] |
65 | 5.5 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Boiler Life Evaluation and Simulation System (BLESS) |
66 | Figure 5-4. EPRI BLESS Methodology Applied in an Iterative Fashion |
67 | Table 5-6. Material Properties used in BLESS Calculation for Gr22 in [ksi, in, hrs, °F] |
68 | Table 5-7. Material Properties used in BLESS Calculation for Gr91 in [ksi, in, hrs, °F] |
69 | Table 5-8. Stress Intensity, Fully Plastic J-Integral (Jp), and Steady State Creep Crack Driving Force (C*) Solutions for Each Flaw Configuration Case |
70 | Figure 5-5. Visual Representation of Flaw Configurations Associated with Case 3 – 5 from Zahoor Table 5-9. Pipe/Tube Radius to Wall Thickness Ratios |
71 | Figure 5-6. Visual Representation of Buchalet [22] Idealization for Flaw 11 |
77 | 6 RESULTS 6.1 Results using the API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1 methodology Table 6-1. Maximum Allowable Flaw Sizes for the Configurations of Interest Analyzed with the API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 Methodology |
78 | 6.2 Results using the R5 V4/5 methodology Table 6-2. Maximum Allowable Flaw Sizes for the Configurations of Interest Analyzed with the R5 V4/5methodology |
79 | 6.3 Results using the BLESS methodology Table 6-3. Maximum Allowable Flaw Sizes for the Configurations of Interest Analyzed with the EPRI BLESS Methodology |
80 | 6.4 Supporting information |
82 | 7 VERIFICATION VIA HAND CALCULATIONS 7.1 Hand calculation using API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 |
88 | 7.2 Hand calculation using R5 V4/5 |
94 | 7.3 Hand calculation using BLESS |
99 | 8 DISCUSSION 8.1 Creep crack initiation and growth with R5 V4/5 Figure 8-1. Calculated Crack Growth for Sht_Gr22_Long_Mid_Infinite Configuration Solved With R5 V4/5 with A Starting Flaw Size of a/t = 20% |
100 | 8.2 Faster crack growth for semi-elliptical than infinite length flaws in BLESS Figure 8-2. Typical Shapes for Creep Crack Growth Curves from [23] |
101 | Figure 8-3. Crack Depth versus Time for Rht_Gr22_Long_Inside_Semiellipt Using the BLESS Methodology and an Initial Crack of a/t = 2% Table 8-1. Comparison of BLESS Solutions for Longitudinal Semi-Elliptical versus Full LengthCracks for the Grade 22 Reheater Tube |
102 | Figure 8-4. Crack Depth versus Time for Rht_Gr22_Long_Inside_Infinite Using the BLESS Methodology and an Initial Crack of a/t = 2% Figure 8-5. Normalized Fully-Plastic J-Integral Solutions versus a/t |
103 | 9 CONCLUSIONS |
105 | REFERENCES |
107 | APPENDIX A: STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) |