News & Views, Volume 53 | Serviceability Assessment of an L-Grade Stainless Steel Pipe Fitting

By: Terry Totemeier

A client recently ordered a Type 316 stainless steel pipe coupling fitting for use in a high-pressure, high-temperature steam line operating at 1005°F.  The fitting that was received was so-called dual grade Type 316/316L stainless steel.  Given the limitations on using “L” grades of stainless steel at high temperatures, the client requested that SI perform a serviceability assessment for the fitting to determine if it could be safely used until the next scheduled outage when a replacement non-L grade fitting would be available.

BACKGROUND
The fitting ordered was a ½” nominal diameter (NPS ½), 6000# (Class 6000) full coupling socket-welding fitting in accordance with the ASME B16.11 specification, material ASME SA-182 forging, Type 316 stainless steel (designated as F316 in SA-182).  The fitting supplied was dual grade F316/316L material with a carbon content of 0.023% per the material test certificate.  The designation of this material as “dual grade” means that it meets the requirements of both F316 and F316L material grades.  This is possible because the chemical composition requirements of these two grades overlap, with the primary difference between them being carbon content.  For F316 the carbon content is specified to be 0.08% maximum (no minimum), while for F316L the carbon content is specified to be 0.030% maximum.  Therefore, material with carbon content less than 0.030% will meet the requirements for both grades.  It is worth noting that the carbon content of “H” grade of 316 stainless steel (F316H per SA-182) is specified to be 0.04-0.10%.  The H grade is intended for use at high temperatures.

The received fitting was installed in a main steam valve pressure equalizing line with a steam temperature/pressure of 2750 psia/1015°F at design conditions and 2520 psia/1005°F at operating conditions.  The fitting was welded to Grade P11 pipe on one side and Grade P22 pipe on the other side.  The applicable code was stated to be ASME BPVC Section I.

With a reported carbon content of less than 0.04%, the fitting is technically not permitted for use in ASME Section I construction above a temperature of 1000°F.  Per the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) Section II, Part D, Table 1A, the allowable stresses for SA-182, F316 material are valid at or above 1000°F only when the carbon content is greater than 0.04% (Note G12).  Per the same table, SA-182, F316L material is only permitted for use in Section I construction up to 850°F.  The reason for this temperature limitation is that the long-term creep-rupture strength of Type 316 stainless steel with lower carbon content is reduced compared to material with higher carbon content because fewer carbides form during service to strengthen the grain boundaries.  There are no other adverse impacts of the lower carbon content, e.g., on fatigue strength or oxidation resistance.

The short-term serviceability of the fitting with low carbon content was assessed by comparing bounding pressure stresses in the fitting with the reported creep-rupture strength for Type 316L material.  Per the ASME B16.11 specification, Class 6000 socket-welding fittings are compatible with NPS Schedule 160 pipe, meaning that pressure stresses in the fitting will be less than those in Sch 160 pipe with minimum wall thickness according to ASME B36.10 (pipe dimension specification), in other words, the fitting will be at least as strong as the pipe.  

ASSESSMENT
The dimensions of NPS ½, Schedule 160 pipe per the ASME B36.10 pipe specification are 0.84” outer diameter (OD), 0.165” minimum wall thickness (MWT).  For an operating steam pressure of 2,520 psi, the reference hoop stress per the equation in ASME BPVC Section I, Appendix A-317 is 5.05 ksi.  Per the general design guidance in ASME B16.11 (Section 2.1.1) the pressure stresses in the fitting must be less than this.  

Figure 1. Schematic diagram for a socket-welding coupling fitting. Per ASME B16.11, an NPS ½, Class 6000 fitting has relevant dimensions B = 0.875” maximum, C = 0.204” minimum, and D = 0.434” minimum.

Since the fitting in question is cylindrical, comparative hoop stresses can also be calculated from dimensions given in ASME B16.11, although these may not be exact due to the varied wall thickness in the fitting.  According to Table I-1 of ASME B16.11, the central body of the fitting is 1.283” OD and 0.395” MWT (Figure 1).  The reference hoop stress calculated using the A-317 equation at 2,520 psi stream pressure and these dimensions is 2.63 ksi, considerably less than 5.05 ksi.  In the female socket ends of the fitting, the OD is also 1.283”, but the minimum wall thickness is 0.204”, leading to a calculated reference hoop pressure stress of 6.58 ksi.  Note that the actual stresses in the socket ends will be much less than this because the pipe will be inserted and welded into the socket, taking up the pressure loading, but the calculated stress can be taken as a bounding value.

Creep-rupture strengths for Type 316L stainless steel have been reported in ASTM Data Series DS 5S2 publication, “An Evaluation of the Yield, Tensile, Creep, and Rupture Strengths of Wrought 304, 316, 321, and 347 Stainless Steels at Elevated Temperatures” (ASTM, 1969).  According to Table 7 in this report, the average 10,000 hour creep-rupture strengths for Type 316L at 1000°F and 1050°F are 34.5 and 25 ksi, respectively.  Minimum creep-rupture strengths are typically taken as 80% of the average strength, so the inferred minimum strengths at 1000°F and 1050°F are 27.6 and 20 ksi, respectively.  

The reported 10,000 hour creep-rupture strengths in the temperature range of interest are more than twice the calculated bounding pressure stresses in the fitting, so it was judged that there is very little risk of failure of the fitting by creep-rupture in the next 10,000 hours of service.

This result is unsurprising since the 1005°F is barely into the creep range for Type 316 regardless of carbon content.  The carbon content effects become more pronounced at higher temperatures (approximately 1100°F and above).

CONCLUSION
Based on the above assessment, it was SI’s opinion that the Type 316L fitting with carbon content less than 0.03% was suitable for a limited period of service (less than 10,000 hours) until it can be replaced.  Given that the fitting is reportedly welded to low-alloy steel pipe on either side, SI also recommended that a Grade 22 (2.25Cr-1Mo) low-alloy steel fitting be considered as a replacement, which would eliminate dissimilar metal welds (DMWs) between the fitting and pipes.  DMWs are prone to premature failure due to thermal fatigue, weld fusion line cracking, and decarburization of the ferritic material. This voluntary recommendation made by SI, was not part of the original scope of work, but may have been just as critical a finding as it shed light upon a failure risk previously unknown by the client. 

Get News & Views, Volume 53

News & Views, Volume 48 | Metallurgical Lab Case Study – Grade 91 Elbows Cracked Before Installation

By:  Wendy Weiss and Terry Totemeier

News & View, Volume 48 | Metallurgical Lab Case Study - Grade 91 Elbows Cracked Before InstallationStructural Integrity (SI) personnel visited a power plant construction site to examine four Grade 91 elbows (ASTM A234-WP91 20-inch OD Sch. 60) that were found to contain axially oriented surface indications. The elbows had not yet been installed. The indications were initially noticed during magnetic particle testing (MT) after one end of an elbow was field welded to a straight section and post weld heat treated (PWHT). Subsequently, three additional similarly welded elbows were inspected and indications were found at both the welded (inlet) and open (outlet) ends of three elbows. The elbow with the most significant indications was selected for SI’s on-site examinations. Figure 1 shows the inlet and outlet ends of the selected elbow.

READ MORE

News & View, Volume 46 | Cross-Weld Creep-Rupture Testing for Seam Weld Life Management

News & Views, Volume 46 | Cross-Weld Creep-Rupture Testing for Seam Weld Life Management

By:  Jonnathan Warwick, Terry Totemeier, and Brian Chambers, Duke Energy

News & View, Volume 46 | Cross-Weld Creep-Rupture Testing for Seam Weld Life ManagementLongitudinal seam-welded hot-reheat steam piping operating in the creep regime is a continuing life-management challenge for many older fossil-fired power plants.  In response to catastrophic seam-welded piping failures in the 1980’s, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) developed a comprehensive inspection protocol to insure continued safe operation of these piping systems [1]. The protocol requires full inspection of seam-welded hot-reheat pipe once a threshold of service exposure (calculated creep life consumption) has been reached, and re-inspection at intervals after the initial inspection depending on the inspection results.  Inspection for sub-surface cracking using ultrasonic testing (conventional or advanced) is strongly recommended, in combination with checking for surface cracking using wet fluorescent magnetic particle testing (WFMT).  Initial inspection and re-inspection of these piping systems represents a large maintenance cost for utilities, especially as older plants remain in service due to the changing economics of power generation.

READ MORE

News & View, Volume 46 | Metallurgical Lab Case Study- Cracking of Grade 23 Steel Furnace Wall Tubes

News & Views, Volume 46 | Metallurgical Lab Case Study: Cracking of Grade 23 Steel Furnace Wall Tubes

By: Terry Totemeier

News & View, Volume 46 | Metallurgical Lab Case Study- Cracking of Grade 23 Steel Furnace Wall TubesGrade 23 is a creep strength enhanced ferritic (CSEF) steel that was designed to offer similar creep strength to Grade 91 but with lower Cr content and, in the original concept, fabrication without pre- and post-weld heat treatment making the material attractive for the furnace wall tubes of ultra-supercritical coal plants where T12 has insufficient strength and T91 would be too complex to fabricate. Experience gained with T23 has shown that pre-heat is necessary and that post-weld heat treatment should also be performed when the material is employed in “high restraint” applications such as furnace wall tubes. Like other CSEF steels, T23 is very sensitive to heat treatment, and care must be taken to ensure that hard, brittle microstructures do not enter service – particularly in high restraint applications such as furnace wall tubes.

READ MORE

News & View, Volume 44 | Metallurgical Lab Featured Damage Mechanism Long-Term Overheating:Creep (LTOC) in Steam-Cooled Boiler Tubes

News & Views, Volume 44 | Metallurgical Lab Featured Damage Mechanism – Long-Term Overheating/Creep (LTOC) in Steam-Cooled Boiler Tubes

By:  Terry Totemeier

News & View, Volume 44 | Metallurgical Lab Featured Damage Mechanism Long-Term Overheating:Creep (LTOC) in Steam-Cooled Boiler TubesLong-term overheating and creep damage are often the damage mechanisms associated with the normal or expected end of life of steam-touched tubes, generally occurring after 100,000 hours or more of service life at elevated temperatures and pressures. Long-term overheating and creep can also occur when the rate or accumulation of creep damage is moderately higher than anticipated by original design. There are a number of possible reasons for this, but in general the problem can be attributed to one of the following: a non-conservative original design, higher-than-anticipated heat absorption, lower-than-anticipated steam flow, or wall loss caused by external wastage.

Mechanism
The mechanism of failure for LTOC is simply the accelerated accumulation of creep damage in the component over a span of time that is well short of the anticipated design life, but sufficiently long that creep is the dominant damage mode. This damage is typically associated with the operation of the tube above the oxidation limit for the material involved.  This has two effects, which both contribute to long-term creep failure: reduction in wall thickness due to oxidation loss, and build-up of oxide on the tube internal surface, which insulates the tube from the cooling effect of the steam, leading to increasing tube metal temperatures over time.

READ MORE

News & View, Volume 44 | Dissimilar Metal Welds in Grade 91 Steel

News & Views, Volume 44 | Dissimilar Metal Welds in Grade 91 Steel

By:  Terry Totemeier

Introduction
News & View, Volume 44 | Dissimilar Metal Welds in Grade 91 SteelA dissimilar metal weld (DMW) is created whenever alloys with substantially different chemical compositions are welded together – for example, when a low-alloy steel such as Grade 22 (2¼ Cr-1Mo) is welded to an austenitic stainless steel such as TP304H (18Cr-8Ni).  Many DMWs are commonly present in fossil-fired power plants, examples being material transitions in boiler furnace tubes, stainless steel attachments welded onto ferritic steel tubes or pipes, and stainless steel thermowells or steam sampling lines in ferritic steel pipes.  The chemical composition gradients associated with DMWs present unique issues relative to their design, in-service behavior, and life management, particularly for those DMWs operating at elevated temperatures where solid-state diffusion and cyclic thermal stresses are factors, which was previously presented in News and Views (Volume 43, page 19).

With the now widespread use of Grade 91 steel (9Cr-1Mo-V-Nb) for elevated-temperature applications in modern power plants, DMWs involving this material have become common, and increasing service experience has revealed some unique characteristics and failure mechanisms, especially in thicker-section DMWs with austenitic materials.  This article presents a short overview of Grade 91 DMWs:  their design, fabrication, and failure, with emphasis on current industry issues.

There are two basic classes of DMWs in Grade 91 steel:  ferritic-to-ferritic and ferritic-to-austenitic.  The first type corresponds to Grade 91 welded to another ferritic steel with a lower chromium content, such as Grade 22; the second type corresponds to Grade 91 welded to an austenitic stainless steel such as TP304H.  Each of these types has unique concerns and considerations.

READ MORE