Shopping Cart

No products in the cart.

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
Guaranteed Safe Checkout
Category:

If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to our online customer service team by clicking on the bottom right corner. We’re here to assist you 24/7.
Email:[email protected]

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)
ASME STP PT 089 2020
$98.04