EPRI Guidelines For The Evaluation of Seam Welded High Energy Piping PDF

Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Seam-Welded High-Energy Piping
Fourth Edition
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available
in accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with
Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of
this publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does
not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the
N
SED WARNING: export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices
A L
embedded in the document prior to publication.

LICE
Please read the License Agreement

on the back cover before removing
R I
M AT E
the Wrapping Material.
Technical Report
Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Seam-Welded High-Energy Piping
Fourth Edition
1004329
Final Report, December 2003
EPRI Project Manager

R. Tilley
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
EPRI
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow
Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774, press 2 or internally x5379, (925) 609-9169,
(925) 609-1310 (fax).
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2003 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
EPRI
1300 West W.T. Harris Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28262-8550
Principal Investigator
R. Tilley
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Seam-Welded High-Energy Piping: Fourth Edition, EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 2003. 1004329.
iii
REPORT SUMMARY
EPRI published the first edition of the Guidelines for the Evaluation of Seam-Welded Steam
Pipes in 1987 (EPRI report CS-4774). Subsequent updates of the Guidelines in 1996, 2001, and
2003 have added data on new incidents of pipe cracking and failure, new information concerning
damage initiation and propagation phenomena, new and more detailed descriptions of
nondestructive examination methods, and modifications to the EPRI evaluation procedures.
Background
Following the well-publicized ruptures of seam-welded hot reheat (HRH) piping at Mohave in
1985 and Monroe in 1986, EPRI developed and issued Guidelines for the Evaluation of Seam-
Welded Piping in 1987. After a few years, additional instances of piping failure occurred.
Responding to the concern these events caused, EPRI reviewed and analyzed laboratory data and
field experience acquired since the 1987 Guidelines. This effort resulted in a major revision to
the Guidelines in 1996, followed by an update in 2001.
Increasing awareness of other forms of cracking, such as weld centerline cracking and Type IV
cracking, has underscored the importance of incipient cavitation damage detection. As a result,
researchers have developed more sensitive acoustic emission and advanced ultrasonic
techniques, including time-of-flight diffraction and linear phased array. These techniques are
becoming more cost-effective and can provide reliable flaw detection and sizing in a more timely
and consistent manner than conventional ultrasonic examination. Summaries of the techniques,
recommended application procedures, and methods for evaluating collected data have been
added to the Guidelines.
Objectives
To update the third edition of the Guidelines for Evaluation of Seam-Welded High-Energy
Piping by incorporating new cracking and failure data, observations of industry trends, and
information on inspection and evaluation methods.
Approach
Data on cracking and failure incidents reported since the third edition of the Guidelinesand
recent EPRI reports on advances in applicable nondestructive evaluation methodswere
reviewed to prepare the 2003 update (fourth edition) of the Guidelines.
v
Results
The Guidelines feature an easy-to-use stepwise format with inspection and evaluation procedure
details. EPRIs pipe integrity evaluation approach is based on a flaw or damage tolerance
evaluation method in which the flaw or damage zone is detected by inspection. A reinspection
interval is set on the basis of current flaw size (in the through-wall dimension) and the estimated
rate of crack growth. The flaw size is the inspection-estimated value or an appropriately selected
default size when inspection data show no indication of damage.
Field experience indicates heterogeneous damage initiation is predominant, damage generally
progresses in a gradual and detectable fashion, and inspection and evaluation procedures
prescribed in the Guidelines provide an effective means of ensuring seam-welded piping
integrity. The Guidelines primarily address the relatively thin-wall class of seam-welded pipe
commonly found in HRH piping. Procedures for assessing weldments in thick-walled main
steam pipes are less quantitative because damage evolution for the observed weld centerline and
Type IV cracking is neither adequately understood nor predictable.
EPRI Perspective
The Guidelines offer remaining life estimation procedures that provide the engineering basis for
making inspection or maintenance decisions. Seam weldment damage mechanisms and the
influence of numerous operational and structural variables on performance are not currently
understood quantitatively enough for developing a rigorous mechanistic-based evaluation
procedure. Nevertheless, a significant body of laboratory and field experience acquired since the
1980s has been reviewed, consolidated, and incorporated into developing an alternative
empirical procedure that is an effective piping integrity assurance tool.
A planned fifth edition of the Guidelines will address all types of high-energy piping.
Keywords
Seam weldments
Nondestructive evaluation
High-energy piping
Creep
vi
EPRI Licensed Material
ABSTRACT
The body of available utility experience and data on seam-welded piping inspection and failures
has grown considerably since publication of the first edition of the Guidelines for Evaluation of
Seam-Welded Piping in 1987 (CS-4774), as has the body of information on applicable
nondestructive evaluation methods. Ongoing concern for the integrity of seam-welded high-
energy piping motivated EPRI to publish new editions of the Guidelines in 1996, 2001, and 2003
to incorporate this new information. In particular, the updated Guidelines feature more extensive
background information concerning failures, more detailed description of the nondestructive
examination methodsincluding acoustic emission and advanced ultrasonic techniques, and
modifications to the evaluation procedures.
This report describes the details of the known in-service cracking and failure, and how this
experience was used to benchmark the EPRI evaluation procedure. Also described are the
results of laboratory inspections of ex-service seam-welded piping that show the EPRI-
recommended ultrasonic examination procedure to be capable of detecting cracks and creep
microcracked zones of as low as 0.03 inches (0.8 mm) in depth (through-wall dimension).
Assuming that a crack of 0.05 inch-depth (1 mm) can therefore be reliably detected by qualified
inspectors in the field, crack growth analysis and benchmarking against field experience indicate
that a 5-year crack growth (flaw tolerance) period might exist, allowing for inspection-based
piping integrity management. In addition, review of industry experience confirms that the EPRI
inspection procedure has helped avert potential failures, and that in some of the instances where
failures occurred within one or two years of inspection, the inspections were performed
according to the less-sensitive ASME Code, Section V procedures.
Although the need for a comprehensive summary of the state-of-knowledge on seam-welded

piping behavior has resulted in a lengthy document, the utility user may choose to focus only on
the implementation steps of the Guidelines. Section 3, Overview of Approach to Pipe
Evaluation, is a stand-alone, stepwise user guide that allows the reader to quickly and easily
implement the Guidelines without a need for review of the detailed background information
contained elsewhere in the document.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The fourth edition of the Guidelines for Evaluation for Seam-Welded Piping represents nearly 20
years of vital research on creep cavitation and crack propagation and on the capabilities of
nondestructive evaluation methods to detect damage in seam-welded piping. Principal
investigators of the Guidelines have included J.R. Foulds of Failure Analysis Associates, Inc., R.
Tilley and R. Viswanathan of EPRI, and J.L. Landrum and S.M. Walker of the EPRI
Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Center. The individuals acknowledged below have been
important contributors to the development of the Guidelines.
E. Martinez, EPRI NDE Center, contributed to the assessment of the EPRI-recommended

conventional ultrasonic examination procedure. D. Dedhia, Engineering Mechanics Technology,
Inc., provided assistance with refinement and use of the BLESS Code, analyses of rupture and
crack growth data, and the creep crack growth benchmarking exercise. S. Andrew and V. Rao,
Failure Analysis Associates, Inc., assisted in the benchmarking exercise and in document
production. M. Maystead, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc., assisted in the production of
graphics. C. Jaske, CC Technologies, Inc., provided creep crack growth rate data.
The following individuals are thanked for their thoughtful review of the 1996 version of the
Guidelines: A. Flatley, S. Gehl, and R. Tilley, EPRI; D. Nass, Arizona Public Service Co.; H.
O'Connor and D. Lang, Boston Edison Co.; J. Schaefer, Detroit Edison Co.; J. Dieffenbach, R.
Kessler, J. Frey, A. Birring, and B. Smith, Houston Lighting & Power Co.; M. Sheikh, Niagara
Mohawk Power Co.; D. Kerr and D. Urabe, Pacific Gas & Electric Co.; V. Spangler, Tampa
Electric Co.; D. Bishop, Union Electric; and G. Ludden, Virginia Power Co.
C. Schultz and J. Bloom, Babcock & Wilcox, are thanked for comments on the BLESS Code
crack growth algorithms. S. Paterson, Aptech Engineering Services, Inc., provided comments on
the potential use of creep rupture data in life prediction. C. Wells, Southwest Research Institute,
is thanked for comments regarding the possible effects of pipe configuration on creep damage
rate and damage distribution.
The bid specifications of South Carolina Electric & Gas and Ohio Edison were valuable
contributions to the development of the steam pipe examination bid specification.
The 2001 update included significant portions of EPRI report 1000564, Guidelines for Advanced
Ultrasonic Examination of Seam-Welded High Energy Piping, prepared by R. Tilley and J.
Landrum of EPRI and J. Everett of AEAT plc. R. Viswanathan of EPRI and R. Munson of
M&M Engineering provided new pipe cracking and failure data. R. Myhre and L. Imset of
Bevilacqua-Knight, Inc., provided a technical and editorial review.
ix
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... S-1
1 INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATIONS ...............................................................1-1

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1-1
Incidents of Cracking and Failure..........................................................................................1-2
Metallurgical Observations ....................................................................................................1-7
Damage and Fracture Morphology...................................................................................1-7
Effect of Metallurgical Variables .....................................................................................1-14
Effect of Pipe Configuration and System Loads..................................................................1-24
Material Properties of Service-Exposed Weldments ...........................................................1-26
Stress Rupture Properties ..............................................................................................1-26
Creep Crack Growth.......................................................................................................1-35
Fracture Toughness and Leak-Before-Break .................................................................1-41
Field Inspection Experience ................................................................................................1-44
Effect of Ultrasonic Examination Procedure ...................................................................1-45
Results of Industry Surveys............................................................................................1-47
Summary of Observations...................................................................................................1-61
2 TECHNICAL BASES FOR GUIDELINES ..............................................................................2-1

Ultrasonic Examination Capability.........................................................................................2-1
Results of 1987 Investigations..........................................................................................2-1
Results of 1993 Investigations..........................................................................................2-4
Weldment Performance Predictability .................................................................................2-10
Benchmarking Laboratory Stress Rupture Data Against Field Failures .........................2-11
Benchmarking Laboratory Crack Growth Data Against Field Failures ...........................2-18
Creep Cavitation Damage ..............................................................................................2-30
Basis for Integrity Assessment ............................................................................................2-38
xi
3 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH TO PIPE EVALUATION .........................................................3-1

The Roadmap for Seam-Welded Pipe Evaluation.................................................................3-6
Case 1: Conventional UT Indication Reliably Located in Weld Metal Interior
(Figure 3-7).....................................................................................................................3-18
Case 2: Conventional UT Indication Not Reliably Located in Weld Metal Interior
(Figure 3-8).....................................................................................................................3-18
Seam Weldment Sample Evaluation ..............................................................................3-20
Case 3: No Significant Indications by Conventional UT Inspection (Figure 3-11) .........3-30
Step 8: Establish Reinspection Interval and Extent........................................................3-31
4 INSPECTION DECISION........................................................................................................4-1
Fabrication and Operating History.........................................................................................4-1
Review of Fabrication Details ...........................................................................................4-1
Review of Operating History..................................................................................................4-3
Locating Seam Welds ...........................................................................................................4-3
Visual................................................................................................................................4-3
Radiography .....................................................................................................................4-4
Acid Etch ..........................................................................................................................4-4
Eddy Current ....................................................................................................................4-4
Inspection History and Decision ............................................................................................4-6
LFE Calculation (Step 4.2 of Figure 3-4a) ........................................................................4-6
Inspection Decision ..........................................................................................................4-9
5 INSPECTION METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................5-1

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................5-1
Acoustic Emissions ...............................................................................................................5-5
Conventional Ultrasonic Examination....................................................................................5-9
Outside Surface Accessibility ...........................................................................................5-9
Inside Surface Accessibility ............................................................................................5-13
Ultrasonic Flaw Sizing ....................................................................................................5-14
Specialized Ultrasonic Equipment and Techniques .......................................................5-18
Advanced Ultrasonic Examination.......................................................................................5-20
Time-of-Flight Diffraction .....................................................................................................5-20
Data Acquisition and Analysis ........................................................................................5-23
Evaluation Summary ......................................................................................................5-26
Linear Phased Array............................................................................................................5-26
xii
Data Acquisition and Analysis ........................................................................................5-27

Evaluation Summary ...........................................................................................................5-33
Computer-Aided Plotting Methods ......................................................................................5-33
Surface Examination Methods ............................................................................................5-33
Visual Examination .........................................................................................................5-34
Magnetic Particle Examination .......................................................................................5-34
Replication......................................................................................................................5-36
6 SERVICEABILITY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................6-1

Evaluation of Ultrasonic Examination Results.......................................................................6-3
Conventional UT Indication Reliably Located in Weld Metal Interior ................................6-3
Conventional UT Indication Not Reliably Located in Weld Metal Interior .........................6-4
No Significant Indications .................................................................................................6-5
Evaluation of Pipe Seam Weldment Samples.......................................................................6-6
Flaw in Weld Metal without Cavitation..............................................................................6-6
Cavitation in Weld Metal...................................................................................................6-7
Flaw at Fusion Line without Cavitation .............................................................................6-8
Flaw at Fusion Line with Cavitation ..................................................................................6-9
Type IV and Weld Centerline (Fine-Grain HAZ) Cavitation/Cracking.............................6-10
No Flaws, No Cavitation .................................................................................................6-11
Sample Removal and Testing .............................................................................................6-11
Sample Removal and Pipe Repair .................................................................................6-11
Mechanical Testing.........................................................................................................6-12
7 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................7-1
8 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................8-1
A CRACKING AND FAILURE EXPERIENCE ......................................................................... A-1
B ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION PROCEDURE..................................................................... B-1

Purpose ................................................................................................................................ B-1
Scope ................................................................................................................................... B-1
Equipment ............................................................................................................................ B-1
Ultrasonic Instrument....................................................................................................... B-1
Ultrasonic Search Units ................................................................................................... B-1
xiii
Basic Calibration Block.................................................................................................... B-4

Calibration ............................................................................................................................ B-7
Examination ......................................................................................................................... B-7
Surface Preparation......................................................................................................... B-7
Scanning Parameters ...................................................................................................... B-7
Scanning.......................................................................................................................... B-7
Recording ........................................................................................................................ B-8
Evaluation........................................................................................................................ B-8
C TIME-OF-FLIGHT DIFFRACTION EXAMINATION PROCEDURE ...................................... C-1
D AUTOMATED PHASED ARRAY EXAMINATION PROCEDURE........................................ D-1
E ULTRASONIC FLAW SIZING PROCEDURE....................................................................... E-1

Summary .............................................................................................................................. E-1
Purpose ................................................................................................................................ E-1
Scope ................................................................................................................................... E-1
Equipment ............................................................................................................................ E-1
Ultrasonic Instrument....................................................................................................... E-1
Ultrasonic Search Units ................................................................................................... E-1
Calibration Blocks............................................................................................................ E-2
Length Sizing Technique...................................................................................................... E-4
Height Sizing Technique ...................................................................................................... E-4
High-Angle Longitudinal Wave Method ........................................................................... E-4
Full-Vee Path Corner Reflection...................................................................................... E-5
Flaw Tip Diffraction Method............................................................................................. E-9
Calibration Method ............................................................................................................. E-12
Calibration for High-Angle Longitudinal Wave Method.................................................. E-12
Calibration for Flaw Tip Diffraction Method ................................................................... E-12
Size Determination ............................................................................................................. E-16
Flaws Connected to the Inside Surface.............................................................................. E-16
Flaws Connected to the Outside Surface ...................................................................... E-17
Flaws Not Surface Connected....................................................................................... E-17
Recording ........................................................................................................................... E-18
Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... E-18
xiv
F BID SPECIFICATION FOR EXAMINATION OF SEAM-WELDED STEAM PIPING .............F-1
G CRACK GROWTH CALCULATION PROCEDURE ............................................................. G-1
H STRESS RUPTURE TESTING ............................................................................................. H-1

References ........................................................................................................................... H-4
I EPRI COMMONLY USED UNITS - CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS........................................I-1
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Schematic showing primary cracking/damage locations observed in piping

seam weldments. ...............................................................................................................1-9
Figure 1-2 Macrophotograph showing fusion line cracking on the weld metal side in
sample from Plant S2 [2]..................................................................................................1-12
Figure 1-3 Optical micrograph showing microcrack damage in sample from Plant S2.
Note discontinuous nature and orientation of microcracks...............................................1-15
Figure 1-4 Hardness profiles across ex-service seam weldments in (a) HRH pipes with
weldments heat-treated above lower-critical temperatures (note uniform profile);
and (b) main steam pipe with weldment subcritically post-weld heat-treated (note
soft Type IV HAZ region). ..............................................................................................1-21
Figure 1-5 Finite element analysis-based prediction of the stress intensification at the
cusp due to a mismatch of the weld/base metal creep rate (R) [14]. ...............................1-23
Figure 1-6a Stress-Larson-Miller Parameter (P) curves for 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo (P11) with
failure/cracking experience (Table 1-1a) plotted for comparison. ....................................1-28
Figure 1-7a Cross-weld stress rupture data on 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo ex-service pipe seam
weldments; italicized designators are Plant cases from Reference 4. .............................1-31
Figure 1-8a Cross-weld stress rupture data on 2-1/4Cr1Mo ex-service pipe seam
weldments; italicized designators are Plant cases from Reference 4, designators in
parentheses are as for Table 1-1a. ..................................................................................1-33
Figure 1-9 Creep crack growth data for weld metal, derived from tests on ex-service
seam weldments. .............................................................................................................1-37
Figure 1-10 Creep crack growth data for fusion line material, derived from tests on ex-
service seam weldments..................................................................................................1-38
Figure 1-11 Default crack growth algorithms from PCPIPE version 3.0 [31]
superimposed on the weld metal and fusion line material data scatterband (from
Figures 1-9 and 1-10).......................................................................................................1-39
Figure 1-12 Intensification of fusion line creep crack growth driving force parameter, C*,
due to weld-to-base metal creep rate ratio (R); reproduced from Stevick and Finnie
[14]. The y-axis representation has been simplified, where CFE* is the finite
element stress analysis-based estimation of C*, and stress analysis-based
estimation of C*, and C*Hd-Bk is the Handbook solution for a center-cracked panel......1-43
Figure 2-1 Slag inclusions with creep crack propagation...........................................................2-3
Figure 2-2 Measured notch depth versus known depth for several techniques.........................2-5
Figure 2-3 Comparison of measured ultrasonic tip diffraction depth vs. metallographic
depth for cracked seam-welded HRH pipe samples. .........................................................2-9
Figure 2-4 Schematic showing crack growth of several cracks staggered in time...................2-22
xvii
Figure 2-5 Schematic illustrating the evolution of creep damage in case of double-V
seam-welded HRH piping ................................................................................................2-24
Figure 2-6 Creep-life assessment based on cavity classification [40]. ....................................2-33
Figure 2-7 The correlation between damage classification and expended creep-life
fraction for 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo steels......................................................................................2-34
Figure 2-8 Service life vs. reinspection interval for the APTECH/EPRI remaining useful
life method and the Wedel-Neubauer method [43]. .........................................................2-35
Figure 2-9 Master curves of cavity method (2-1/4Cr1Mo) [46].................................................2-37
Figure 3-1 Overall Roadmap for steam pipe evaluation. ...........................................................3-5
Figure 3-2a Details of Step 1 of the Roadmap...........................................................................3-7
Figure 3-3a Details of Roadmap, Steps 2 and 3........................................................................3-9
Figure 3-4a Details of Roadmap, Step 4..................................................................................3-11
Figure 3-7 Details of Roadmap, Step 7, Case 1 (Conventional UT indication reliably
located in weld metal interior). .........................................................................................3-17
Figure 3-8 Details of Roadmap, Step 7, Case 2 (Conventional UT indication not reliably
located in weld metal interior). .........................................................................................3-19
Figure 3-9 Seam weldment sample evaluation steps. .............................................................3-21
Figure 3-10a Details of Roadmap, Step 7.18, Case A: As-removed sample shows flaw in
weld metal with no cavitation. ..........................................................................................3-23
Figure 3-11 Details of Roadmap, Step 7, Case 3: No Significant Indications ..........................3-29
Figure 4-1 Details of overall Roadmap highlighting the steps leading up to the first
inspection decision.............................................................................................................4-2
Figure 4-2 Stress-Larson-Miller parameter curves for 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo steel; note the
ASTM Mean and Minimum curves, the latter being used for the screening
procedure. ........................................................................................................................4-10
Figure 4-3 Stress-Larson-Miller parameter curves for 2-1/4Cr1Mo steel; note the ASTM
Mean and Minimum curves, the latter being used for the screening procedure...............4-11
Figure 5-1 Details of overall Roadmap highlighting the Inspection step. ...................................5-3
Figure 5-2 Example of weld crown interference.......................................................................5-11
Figure 5-3 Examples of flaw detection angles. ........................................................................5-12
Figure 5-4 Tip diffraction sizing techniques. ............................................................................5-16
Figure 5-5 Generation of satellite pulse from crack. ................................................................5-17
Figure 5-6 Various orthogonal views available on most imaging systems...............................5-19
Figure 5-7a Typical Probe Arrangement and Ultrasonic Wave Paths .....................................5-21
Figure 5-8 Potential for Focusing Using Phased Array Technology ........................................5-32
Figure 5-9 Example of computer aided plotting techniques using the EPRI RAYTRACE
program............................................................................................................................5-35
Figure 6-1 Roadmap for steam pipe evaluation highlighting steps involving serviceability
evaluation and disposition..................................................................................................6-2
xviii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1a Summary of Seam-Welded Pipe Cracking and Failure Experience Cited
19571993 .........................................................................................................................1-5
Table 1-1b Summary of Seam-Welded Pipe Cracking and Failure Experience After 1993.......1-6
Table 1-2 Summary of Creep Damage Observations..............................................................1-10
Table 1-3 Metallurgical Observations in Cracking and Failure Instances ................................1-16
Table 1-4 Summary of Average Hardness in Zones of Seam Weldments in Pipe
Sections that Have Experienced Major Cracking or Failure.............................................1-22
Table 1-5 Creep Crack Growth Rate Algorithms (of Eq. 1-1) ..................................................1-40
Table 1-6 Dependence of Creep Strain Rate on Stress and Temperature (Eq. 1-4) ...............1-40
Table 1-7 Comparison of EPRI and ASME Section V Ultrasonic Examination
Requirements for Ferritic Pipe Welds ..............................................................................1-46
Table 1-8 1987 Inspection Survey Results ..............................................................................1-48
Table 1-9 Comparison of Ultrasonic Examination Results with Actual Flaws Found as
Reported by 11 Utilities ....................................................................................................1-52
Table 1-10 1993 Inspection Survey Results ............................................................................1-53
Table 2-1 Ultrasonic-Based Interpretation of Selected Locations and Comparison with
Metallographic Observations [2].........................................................................................2-7
Table 2-2 Creep RuptureBased Life Predictions Compared with Service Life.......................2-14
Table 2-3 Effect of Service Exposure on Cross-Weld & = f(, T) Relationshipa ....................2-18
Table 2-4 Effect of Service Exposure on da/dt-Ct Behaviora ..................................................2-19
Table 2-5 Crack Growth Life Using Weldment-Specific Creep Rate and Crack Growth
Data..................................................................................................................................2-26
Table 2-6 Generic Crack Growth Predictions vs. Service Life*................................................2-27
Table 2-7 Comparison of Code Predictions (kHrs) for Steady-State Creep Crack
Growtha ............................................................................................................................2-30
Table 5-1 NDE Methods Applicable to Seam-Welded Piping ....................................................5-4
xix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Following the catastrophic failure of a seam-welded hot reheat (HRH) pipe at two power stations
in 1985 and 1986, the U.S. electric power industry, with the assistance of the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), embarked on an aggressive inspection and evaluation effort to
minimize the risk associated with operating seam-welded high-energy piping. This resulted in
the EPRI guidelines for inspecting and assessing the integrity of seam-welded piping, issued in
1987 (CS-4774). The Guidelines, subsequently updated in 1996, 2001, and 2003, have
heightened industry awareness and technical understanding of the problem and have prevented
some potential failures. The later editions incorporate additional data and plant experience with
seam weld cracking and new information on the relevant damage mechanisms. Analyses in
conjunction with their development have furthered our understanding of the effectiveness of the
EPRI-recommended field inspection procedure.
Objectives and Scope
Guidelines for evaluating seam-welded piping have been developed by EPRI to assist utilities in
avoiding premature replacement of piping while minimizing the risk of pipe failures and costly
plant shutdowns. It is intended that the Guidelines will be used as a technical basis for decisions
regarding timing of inspections and for eventual replacement when reinspections become too
frequent.
The efforts launched by EPRI since the original 1987 Guidelines that have contributed to the
current 2003 Guidelines include:
1. In-depth analysis of a HRH pipe leak at Gulf States Utilities Sabine plant.
2. Consolidation and analysis of available data relating to failure and major cracking
experience.
3. Survey of industry inspection practices and their adequacy.
4. A more quantitative definition of flaw detection and sizing capability of the EPRI
ultrasonic inspection procedures.
5. Consolidation and analysis of new information that has become available pertaining to
key materials properties of ex-service weldments, such as stress rupture, creep and crack
growth.
S-1
6. Reports on improved inspection technologies. Introduced in Section 5, acoustic emission

and advanced ultrasonic test methods are becoming more cost-effective and can provide
improved flaw detection and sizing capabilities.
The results from these efforts support the conclusion that proper inspections followed by crack
growth analyses can identify high-risk conditions early enough to avoid catastrophic failures.
The pipe evaluation procedures recommended here have been developed in an empirical manner,
by benchmarking laboratory test-based damage rate predictions against service experience, and
with particular reference to failure modes commonly encountered in seam-welded HRH piping.
As understanding of the relevant seam-welded pipe damage mechanisms progresses, it is hoped
that the empirical methodology proposed here will form the basis for a more rigorous
engineering analysis.
Key Results/Highlights
There are many factors potentially contributing to seam-welded pipe failures, such as stress,
stress state, temperature, time, fabrication defects, heat treatment, inclusion content, cusp
geometry, weld-base metal creep strength mismatch, roof angle, pipe ovality, etc. However,
there is not yet a quantitative formula that combines these effects to predict weldment
performance. Unique combinations of these factors have evidently contributed to various
industry failures. In the meantime, energy companies are faced with the need to make decisions
about the serviceability of seam-welded piping in their systems. EPRIs review of available data
indicates that piping integrity can be assessed and managed with proper application of today's
inspection technology.
The mechanisms and contributing causes of seam-welded piping failures are not fully
understood. It has been suggested by some that failures occur by uniform initiation of creep
cavitation damage through the wall, followed by rapid link-up of the cavities leading to
catastrophic failure. In this rapid cracking failure scenario, cracks grow rapidly from the
undetected microscopic level damage into major through-wall cracks, and there is no scope for
early detection by conventional inspection methods. Evidence on HRH piping available to date,
however, indicates a gradual evolution of detectable damage. In this scenario, creep microcracks
initiate locally at the subsurface weld cusp region very near the fusion line. This microcrack
damaged zone then grows toward the pipe inside surface by progressive formation of
microcracks confined to the near-fusion line region and to a region immediately ahead of the
current microcrack damaged zone. The progressive growth of the microcrack damaged zone
beginning from the cusp follows the through-wall stress gradient created by cusp geometry and
weld-base metal creep rate mismatch. This zone continues its growth, reaching the pipes inside
surface. During this time, link-up of microcracks in the early wake of this growing zone may
produce a macrocrack, with the microcrack form of damage continuing to occur at the zone's
leading edge. Final failure occurs by link-up of microcracks to form a macrocrack, and growth
of the macrocrack toward the pipe outside surface. Figure 2-5 of this report shows a schematic
illustrating this scenario. The following important aspects of this damage scenario are directly
relevant to the inspection and evaluation procedures of these Guidelines:
1. Microcrack damage initiates locally (at the cusp), followed by growth of this microcrack
damaged zone in a time-dependent manner.
S-2
2. The microcrack damaged zone, when exceeding 0.05 inches (1 mm) in size, is detectable
by the EPRI ultrasonic inspection methods.
3. The detected crack damaged zone can be sized by the same inspection method.
4. The evaluation procedure is empirically based on the only available fracture mechanics
model and associated laboratory data that describe growth of a single crack. The
(detected and sized) damaged zone is represented by a single crack (of size equal to the
damaged zone size), growing at a rate predicted from laboratory data and benchmarked
against known field experience.
It is recognized that other failure scenarios involving more rapid cracking (such as that of
uniform creep cavitation damage and rapid cavity link-up) may occur under special
circumstances depending upon pipe configuration, weld geometry, and system stresses. The
current state-of-knowledge, however, does not permit prediction of these circumstances. For
example, more detailed analyses of stress gradients in bends, clamshell elbows, roof-angled or
peaked pipe, oval cross-section pipe (i.e., configurations that some have suggested as being
susceptible to rapid cracking) are needed for identification of the rapid cracking scenario
susceptibility in these cases. Further, examination of documented field cracking experience does
not provide evidence of the rapid cracking scenario required to help identify and quantify the
conditions that would make it possible.
The pipe inspection and evaluation approach taken is premised on the time-dependent evolution
of damage further supported by the following evidence:
Stress analysis shows that stress concentration effects at the weld cusp can lead to local stress
intensification of as much as 40%, which potentially explains why localized crack initiation
occurs rather than nucleation of creep damage uniformly across the pipe wall.
Available metallographic evidence has shown that a wide distribution of crack sizes and
microcrack damaged zones exists at the time of failure. This is more consistent with a
scenario of stable, time-dependent crack growth.
In four instances where crack surface oxide thickness has been reported, oxide dating
calculations have shown that the cracks had been exposed to steam (pipe inside surface-
connected) for at least 3 years. It could therefore be inferred that a subsurface crack or
microcrack damaged zone detectable by the EPRI ultrasonic inspection method (0.05-inch (1
mm) reliable detection threshold, see next item) may have existed internally for a period
exceeding 5 years.
Detailed comparison of the laboratory results of the EPRI ultrasonic examination with actual
observations on corresponding metallographic samples from several cracked and uncracked
pipe sections removed from an HRH steam line has shown that cracks and creep microcrack-
damaged zones of depth (through-wall dimension) as low as 0.03 inches (0.8 mm) can be
detected by the EPRI inspection procedure. The comparison also demonstrated good crack
depth sizing capability. Based on the laboratory results, and on the typical ultrasound
wavelength for the application (0.055 inches or 1.4 mm), a crack depth of 0.05 inches (1 mm)
is concluded to be a reliable detection threshold for field inspections performed in
accordance with the recommended procedure.
S-3
Benchmarking of laboratory data-based crack growth predictions against several reported

failures has shown that the time required for a detectable (0.05 inches or
1 mm) crack to grow to a through-wall crack is in excess of 5 years for typical HRH piping
under normal operating conditions. Considering that the benchmarking represents a worst
case exercise (very few failures compared with miles of piping in successful operation), the
crack growth prediction procedure is believed to be conservative.
In the only instances where leaks were reported within 1 or 2 years following inspection, the
inspection had been performed using less sensitive procedures relative to the EPRI
Guidelines procedure, and, therefore, could have missed larger flaws. Conversely, successful
implementations of EPRI Guidelines have averted two near-failures. Numerous flaws have
been successfully detected in utility HRH piping by adhering to the inspection procedure
included in the Guidelines.
Cumulatively, these results give confidence that proper inspection and assessment procedures are
likely to identify high risk conditions early enough to permit repair/replacement and to avoid
seam-welded pipe failure. The integrity prediction approach offered is nevertheless empirical,
necessitated by current lack of a quantitative understanding of the variables controlling seam
weldment damage and failure. Recognizing the uncertainties associated with applying an
empirical approach to the range of conditions possible, the Guidelines have been developed to
incorporate the following elements of conservatism:
Use of crack growth rate predictions that are benchmarked against field experience of
cracking and failure in pipes representing a small fraction of the operating seam-welded
piping-hours.
The use of four times the normally calculated crack driving parameter in the crack growth
analysis (roughly a threefold increase over the median growth rate from laboratory tests).
Recommendation of 100% inspection the first time, triggered by a 10% LFE (life fraction
expended) criterion representing a small fraction of the rupture life design basis.
Restricting the crack growth-based evaluation procedure to the HRH pipe seam weldment
fusion line and weld metal cracking phenomena; the lesser-understood Type IV fine-grain
heat-affected zone (HAZ), and weld centerline fine-grain, cracking problems primarily
identified with main steam pipe seam weldments are treated even more conservatively as
being flaw-intolerant conditions requiring repair or replacement.
Evaluations based on UT examinations alone use a conservatively sized and located (fusion
line for HRH piping) flaw.
Of the known cases of failure (leaks and ruptures) and major cracking in seam-welded piping to
date, every one of the HRH pipe cases has shown weld fusion line cracking. The main steam
pipe cracking, however, has involved other cracking modes such as weld centerline cracking and
Type IV HAZ cracking. It remains unresolved as to whether the difference in failure location is
due primarily to wall thickness differences (main steam pipes are significantly thicker than HRH
pipes), differences in weld geometry (single-U typical of main steam, and double-V typical of
HRH piping seam welds), or differences in heat treatment (all cracked and failed main steam
pipes were subcritically heat-treated, whereas most of the cracked or failed HRH pipes were
normalized and tempered or critically annealed, which effectively removes the HAZ and alters
S-4
the fusion zone microstructure). The current Guidelines primarily address the relatively thin-
wall class of seam-welded pipe typical of HRH piping.
Based on the observation that the cracking and failure cases to date have occurred at estimated
creep rupture life fractions as low as 10% of that predicted by the conventional ASTM (or
ASME) Minimum Properties curve, it is recommended to use this life fraction number to assist
in an inspection decision. The life fraction calculations and results of conventional stress rupture
tests have been used only as an empirical measure of weldment performance because pipe
constraint, stress concentration, and stress redistribution effects, as well as the failure
mechanisms occurring in piping under operating conditions, are not reproduced in accelerated
laboratory tests on uniaxially loaded, standard-size specimens. Tests using full-scale specimens
could help quantify specimen size effects.
Regarding inspection, the conventional ultrasonic examination procedure recommended since the
original 1987 Guidelines continues to be useful for reliably inspecting pipe seam weldments.
For girth welds, the ASME Code, Section V procedure is deemed adequate. The evaluations are
to be conducted on a spool-piece by spool-piece basis. Therefore, while the first inspection
would be conducted over 100% of the piping system, reinspections would be indicated for
selected spool pieces at different times. The extent of reinspection would seldom involve 100%
of the entire piping system at any given time. It is also noted that the evaluation procedures
recommended here are equally applicable to alternative inspection methods. Advanced ultrasonic
examination techniques, for example, provide reliable flaw detection and sizing results in a more
timely and consistent manner and their results may be used in the Guidelines procedure. Plant
personnel may choose to use other inspection techniques (including less sensitive ones) as long
as they recognize their corresponding flaw detection and sizing capabilities, and perform a crack
growth assessment that relates to those capabilities. The specific procedure to be used depends
on many variables such as the consequence of failure, age of piping, location of piping with
respect to personnel traffic, operating history and history of prior failures, cost/benefit analysis
for run/replace alternatives, and more. Each utility will no doubt make its own choices,
depending on its unique requirements. It is also likely that, with increasing age, the occurrence
of inspection indications will increase to an extent where the costs associated with repeated
inspections and disposition of indications will dictate pipe replacement.
A survey of 29 utilities representing 80 plants has shown a general desire to follow the EPRI
Guidelines inspection procedure, although the actual implementation has sometimes fallen short
of the goal. Although our survey indicated that only 2% of the utilities surveyed complied
completely with the EPRI Guidelines, 50% of the utilities thought that they had followed the
procedures completely, and another 17% believed that they were following the Guidelines
procedures in part. EPRI review of these claims showed that in fact 41% had followed the
Guidelines for the most part. Almost 50% of the respondents followed the EPRI Guidelines
related to ultrasonic flaw detection, but deviated from the Guidelines only with respect to
crack sizing. Because flaw detection is of highest priority in any inspection, this documented
compliance is quite encouraging. It is hoped that compliance will further increase as the
Guidelines are updated.
Since publication of the original 1987 Guidelines, EPRIs NDE Center has provided ongoing
technical assistance to utilities related to the implementation of the Guidelines procedures. In
addition to maintaining regular contact with many utilities, NDE Center personnel have provided
S-5
direct on-site support for HRH pipe inspections, performed evaluations of utilities seam weld
inspection programs, and conducted seam weld inspection training courses for inspection
personnel. Feedback from these efforts provides strong support for the practical application of
the Guidelines. In contrast to the possible perception that performing inspections to the
Guidelines would result in examiners reporting hundreds of small indications, the utilities
supported by EPRIs activities have consistently reported no substantial increase in the numbers
of indications reported.
Limitations of the Guidelines
The empirical approach offered in these Guidelines is based on observations relating to incidents
of past failures and cracking of HRH piping where the failure scenario involves localized crack
initiation followed by progressive through-wall growth in the form of a growing crack or a
microcrack damaged zone. The applicability of the Guidelines may be revised based on new
knowledge generated from ongoing research. Key limitations of the Guidelines include:
The applicability of the Guidelines to other failure scenarios such as Type IV cracking, weld
centerline cracking, and rapid fusion line cracking by cavity link-up may be questioned.
Early stages of this form of damage may be identifiable using metallographic, acoustic
emission, or linear phased array techniques. The later two techniques offer a nondestructive
alternative to a metallographic examination made on a cross-section of a sample removed
from the pipe seam weldment, however, there has been no extensive application to date.
These failure scenarios have not been documented in the case of HRH steam piping in the
United States, and no attempt has been made to develop approaches to guard against such
scenarios.
Although the reliable crack detection threshold for a properly implemented EPRI inspection
procedure is concluded to be 0.05 inches (1 mm), a root mean square (RMS) error of 0.077
inches (2.0 mm) has been noted for crack depth sizing. For crack sizes below about 25% of
the pipe wall thickness, however, the procedure was found to overestimate crack size,
yielding a conservative estimate of remaining life (see Figure 2-3). When crack sizes exceed
25% of the wall thickness, the estimated remaining life is likely to be too small (see Figure
G-2) to permit prolonged continued operation. Inspection results during field application
could also be subject to operator variability. Extensive round-robin testing would be needed
to quantify this variability.
The effects of piping configuration and weld geometry on the local stresses and stress
gradients acting on a seam weldment have not been sufficiently quantified. More detailed
analysis of stress and stress gradients in bends, clamshell elbows, roof angled or peaked pipe,
and oval cross-section pipe, as well as stresses due to system loads under steady and cycling
conditions, would be helpful in improving the accuracy of the predictions.
The present Guidelines do not provide guidance on how to do a leak-before-break analysis.
This is primarily because crack growth rates in the pipe axial direction are not predictable
based on current knowledge. The issue becomes particularly complex when multiple
initiation of cracks followed by link-up can occur axially.
Despite the scatter normally associated with material properties, operating conditions
(stresses, temperatures), weld geometries, and nondestructive evaluation results, the
S-6
distributions associated with these variables are not sufficiently quantified at this time.
Hence, a deterministic approach for life assessment has been followed in the Guidelines.
Development of a probabilistic approach remains a desirable long-range goal.
The present Guidelines are intended to provide only a technical basis for pipe serviceability
assessment. Risk-based economics models for such an assessment include many plant-
specific and company-specific factors beyond the scope of the present document.
The applicability to full-scale field piping of the laboratory databased creep and creep-
fatigue crack growth approach described in the Guidelines has not been thoroughly
investigated, particularly from a mechanistic viewpoint. However, this is the only fracture
mechanics basis that is available to industry, and has therefore been applied at many plants
for high-temperature component integrity assessment.
Other Research and Development
These Guidelines may be revised further based on additional information that could become
available from other research and development. It is hoped that this project and future research
will further clarify the role of operational, metallurgical, and design variables in seam-welded
pipe failure. Further verification of advanced inspection techniques, like acoustic emission
monitoring, could minimize the need for insulation and material sample removal. Similarly,
simplified approaches to estimating stresses would greatly improve understanding and
predictability of the effect of stresses (particularly stresses effected by pipe configuration and
system stresses) on damage initiation and propagation in pipe seam weldments.
Organization of the Guidelines
The Guidelines document is organized into 8 major sections and 9 appendices.
Section 1 summarizes the Industry Experience and Observations, particularly data on

relatively newer failure incidents. Section 2 describes how the experience was reviewed and
quantified in order to establish the Technical Bases for development of the Guidelines. The
section emphasizes the integration of inspectability and improved life assessment capability for
more reliable management of operating seam-welded piping. Section 3 provides an Overview of
Approach to Pipe Evaluation. Sections 4 through 6 elaborate on the evaluation procedure,
from the Inspection Decision (Section 4), to the Inspection Methodology (Section 5), to the
specific guidance on Serviceability Assessment (Section 6). The final Conclusions section
(Section 7) summarizes the key elements of the Guidelines with a summary of limitations
associated with its use. Section 8 lists the References cited throughout the body of the
document.
The Appendices have been designed as detailed references that the reader has immediate access
to for a more complete description of the underlying technical details on which the Guidelines
are based, and for specific guidance on appropriate implementation of the recommended
inspection procedures. Appendix A: Cracking and Failure Experience Data, describes the
details of EPRI-accumulated information on cracking and failure experience in seam-welded
high-energy piping. Appendices B through E provide details on the ultrasonic examination
S-7
procedures used for detecting and characterizing indications for pipe evaluation. Appendix F:
Bid Specification for Examination of Seam-Welded Steam Piping describes the NDE
requirements that an energy company can use in its bid specifications for pipe inspection.
Appendix G: Crack Growth Calculation Procedure describes the procedure recommended for
estimating the rate of growth of seam weld cracks in the through-wall direction. Appendix H:
Stress Rupture Testing is a summary of the issues and limitations associated with interpretation
of accelerated laboratory stress rupture test results to the in-service performance of pipe
weldments. Appendix I: Conversion Factors lists applicable unit conversion factors.
How to Use These Guidelines
The first two sections of this document contain considerable detail on the field cracking and
failure experience, and analysis of laboratory test data for application to the evaluation approach.
This information is intended to assist the interested reader in reviewing and examining the bases
for the recommended approach. The evaluation procedure, however, may be followed and
implemented without the benefit of this background foundation information. Section 3:
Overview of Approach to Pipe Evaluation contains the most essential details of the pipe
evaluation roadmap. The section may be used as a convenient reference to follow the
overall evaluation procedure without having to review the other sections of the document.
Sections 4, 5, and 6 provide the procedural details to implement the evaluation summarized in
Section 3. Section 7 may be referred to for a brief summary of the conclusions, including the
key elements of the Guidelines. Section 8 provides references.
S-8
1
INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATIONS
Introduction
Following the catastrophic failures of seam-welded hot reheat (HRH) piping at two power
stations in 1985 and 1986, the U.S. electric utility industry, with the assistance of the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI), embarked on an aggressive inspection and evaluation effort to
minimize the apparent risk associated with operating seam-welded HRH piping. This effort
resulted in the first edition of the EPRI Guidelines for the Evaluation of Seam-Welded Steam
Pipes, published in 1987 [1]. Since that time, several more seam-welded pipe failures have
occurred. With few exceptions, these failures have not been catastrophic, but have contributed to
the re-emergence of the seam-welded piping safety as a major utility concern. Additional
inspection and laboratory testing experience accumulated since 1987 suggests that the reliability
of HRH seam-welded piping integrity predictions can be enhanced, and that these predictability
enhancements coupled with appropriate inspection practices can be used to better manage the
integrity issue. The second edition of the Guidelines, published in 1996, reflected much of that
additional experience information. After issuance of that edition, more cracking and failure
incidents were logged and advanced nondestructive testing methods matured. The third edition
of the Guidelines, published in 2001, incorporated mid- to late-1990s experience into updated
inspection and evaluation procedures. This fourth edition adds data on a major failure in 2001.
Since the original Guidelines were published in 1987, high-energy piping in regularly operated
units has aged by 80,000 to 90,000 service hours or more. During this time, the following
additional experience data and knowledge about creep behavior in and around longitudinal welds
has been established:
Expansion of the seam-welded pipe experience database: More information regarding
incidents of cracking and leaks observed by utilities has been assembled and analyzed,
resulting in an expansion of the database.
Metallurgical observations and damage progression rates: Post-cracking/failure examination
and laboratory testing have provided additional insight into the mechanisms and drivers of
creep cavitation and cracking, including a more realistic quantitative assessment of damage
progression rates.
Material properties data: New metallurgical data on service-exposed pipe seam weldments
have become available. It is now possible to better define the relevant, realistic scatterband
for creep crack growth prediction in seam weldments, so that the conservatism in previous
analyses is reduced.
1-1
Industry Experience and Observations
Adequacy of the EPRI-recommended conventional ultrasonic examination procedure [1]:

Results from a survey of utility field inspections and other investigations provide practical
insight into the adequacy of the EPRI procedure to detect damage.
Seam weld inspectability: The reliability of the EPRI-recommended ultrasonic examination
procedure to detect seam weld damage sufficiently in advance of failure has been evaluated
by comparing ultrasonic testing results with metallographic examination for a range of HRH
pipe seam weld damage [2].
Improved inspection technologies: Introduced in Section 5, acoustic emission and advanced
ultrasonic test methods are becoming more cost-effective and can provide improved flaw
detection and sizing capabilities.
Incidents of Cracking and Failure
Tables 1-1a and 1-1b summarize the known experience with cracking and failure (leaks and
ruptures) in seam-welded steam piping in the United States. The 43 cases cited in Tables 1-1a
and 1-1b include:
8 Ruptures
9 Leaks
16 Minor cracking incidents
10 Major cracking incidents
Several of the major cracking incidents involved a significant extent of cracking, suggesting
imminent pipe failure. Failure in most of these instances was avoided as a result of discovery of
the damage by in-service inspection using ultrasonic examination. Many of these inspections
were prompted by the 198586 rupture incidents. Appendix A provides additional details on
most of these cases.
Most of the HRH pipe designs consisted of Class 1, radiographed low-alloy steel welds, reported
to be in accordance with the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) and ANSI
(American National Standards Institute) B31.1 Power Piping Code, and manufactured in
accordance with A155 Grade 11 (1-1/4Cr1/2Mo) or Grade 22 (2-1/4Cr1Mo) specifications. The
main steam pipe sections referenced in Table 1-1a were designed in accordance with the ASME
Code, Section I. As both Tables 1-1a and 1-1b indicate, seam weldment failure has occurred in
main steam link and header lead pipe, as well as in HRH pipe. [Note: Although the bulk of the
main steam piping is not typically seam-welded, link piping or header lead lines of the main
steam section may often be seam-welded.]
Although certain piping configurations may make a pipe section more susceptible to seam weld
failure (e.g., elbows), failures and major cracking have occurred in straight sections, bends, and
clamshell elbows, with no apparent pattern with respect to pipe configuration. Failure or service
periods shown in Tables 1-1a and 1-1b indicate that the HRH pipe failure cases have shown short
lifetimes (<100,000 hours in some cases) relative to those for the main steam pipe failures
(generally >150,000 hours). No generalizations regarding pipe/weld life can be made, however,
given the limited data.
1-2
From a simple comparison of the elastically calculated mean-diameter hoop stress (due to
pressure) with the current ASME Code allowable stress for the material at the operating
temperature, that no quantitative conclusions can be made with regard to the risk of failure as a
function of the applied stress-to-allowable stress ratio (see Table 1-1a). The cracked/failed cases
represent pipe materials of both Grade 11 (1-1/4Cr1/2Mo) and Grade 22 (2-1/4Cr1Mo), and no
particular preference for cracking could be identified on the basis of material grade. Except for
cases S1 and S2, which were load-following units, and case C, which was cycled, the units were
reportedly base-loaded; thus, cycling effects cannot be determined from the experience.
The various utility inspection programs prompted by the 1985 Mohave rupture also produced
another body of relevant data. A utility survey was conducted by EPRI [3] to consolidate the
information gained from these inspection programs. The survey covered 60 plants and nearly
30,000 feet (9,000 m) of piping inspected during 198586. The survey showed a total of 22
flaws had been discovered by inspection. Subsequently, additional information regarding 10
more flaws was obtained from boat and core plug samples removed from piping at 48 plant sites
[4]. Of the total of 32 flaws in the two studies, 9 were identified as being potentially
propagating, and 23 were considered nonpropagating, located away from the fusion line between
the weld and base metal.
EPRI has since completed another survey of seam-welded piping inspections. This survey
covered 162 units with 47,000 feet (14,000 m) of seam-welded high-energy piping. The
inspection results were based on inspection of 30,000 feet (9,000 m) of in-service seam weld.
The reported flaws include:
37 flaws that were >0.2 inch (5 mm) deep
23 flaws that were 0.10.2 inch (25 mm) deep with a continuous or intermittent length
(parallel to seam) >2 ft (0.6 m)
Hundreds of short flaws, 0.10.2 inch (25 mm) deep
Results of this survey suggest a significant fraction of reported flaws are nonpropagating,
consistent with the results of the previous survey and study.
As indicated in Tables 1-1a and 1-1b, numerous cases of leaks and cracking conditions have
occurred in the seam welds of HRH clamshell elbows (two-piece seam-welded elbows). The
leaks often occurred in the intrados weld, but did not result in catastrophic rupture. Clamshell
elbows (and tees) are considered especially prone to creep cracking, even in the absence of
significant defects. The membrane hoop stress due to pressure at the intrados of a clamshell
elbow is higher than that in a straight section with the same wall thickness. This intensification
roughly varies from 5% to 10% for a 5D to 3D radius elbow (D, pipe nominal diameter), as can
be estimated from handbook solutions for thin-walled pipe under internal pressure.
With regard to the performance of HRH pipe seam welds, or any other seam-welded high-energy
piping system, at least two issues have become more clearly identifiable since 1987:
(1) Materials Performance: The effect of weld metal and weldment quality on the inherent creep
and crack growth-related performance of a weldment under temperature and stress conditions
1-3
representative of those in service (this mainly relates to the material/metallurgical variables

affecting behavior).
(2) Stresses: The effects of weld geometry, weldment zone-dependent creep response, weldment
loading conditions (e.g., system loads and loading configurations), and other factors on damage
initiation and progression, as they influence the in-service behavior of a given seam-welded pipe.
(This mainly refers to the influence of the complex stress redistribution effected by the varying
creep response of the different weldment zones.)
Although the two issues are not strictly independent in their effects, their separation facilitates
discussion and understanding of the integrity prediction problem. For example, the experience
and failure analysis observations made on the Plant S2 case [2] (see Table 1-1a) suggest that the
metallurgical factors may, in some cases, be secondary with respect to the possible influence of
the loading conditions and configuration of the bend and seam weld.
1-4
Table 1-1a
Summary of Seam-Welded Pipe Cracking and Failure Experience Cited 19571993
Plant Unit Service Service Oper. Oper. OD/wall M-D Component/ Incident
Rating Period Time in Temp. Pressure thickness /ASME Materialb
MW Hours F (C) psig (bar) inches (ksi)a
S1 220 1962-79 120,000 1000 488 20/0.74 6.35/6.5 HRH Rupture

(538) (34) bend (11)
S2 220 1962-92 212,000 1000 488 20/0.74 6.35/6.5 HRH Leak

(538) (34) bend (11)
M1 760 1971-86 97,000 1000 730 32/1.505 7.40/7.8 HRH pipe (22) Rupture
(538) (51)
M2 750 1971-85 88,000 1000 597 30/1.313 6.52/6.5 HRH pipe (11) Rupture
(538) (41)
P1 326 1960-85 1000 484 17.75/0.81 5.06/6.5 HRH pipe Major

(538) (33) Cracking
F 745 1970-86 101,000 1000 600 30/1.4 6.13/6.5 HRH Major

(538) (41) Clamshell elbow Cracking
J 200 1957-85 184,000 1050 360 18/0.75 4.14/5.8 HRH pipe (22) Major
(566) (25) Cracking
G2 250 1957-85 184,000 1050 390 27.5/1.125 4.57/5.8 HRH pipe (22) Major
(566) (27) Cracking
B 1120 1975-87 80,000 1000 720 36/2.25 5.40/7.8 HRH pipe (22) Major
(538) (50) Cracking
N 163 1963-86 1015 525 HRH pipe Major

(545) (36) Cracking
K 200 1965-86 1010 465 HRH pipe Major

(543) (32) Cracking
C NR 1965-93 150,000 1050 515 27.64/1.44 4.69/5.8 HRH pipe (22) Major
(566) (36) Cracking
MS1 570 1965-90 152,000 1000 2640 16/2.75 6.36/7.8 Main steam Major
(538) (182) header link Cracking
piping (22)
MS2 570 1965-92 168,000 1000 2640 16/2.75 6.36/7.8 Main steam Leak
(538) (182) header link
piping (22)
MS3 570 1965-93 172,000 1000 2640 20/3.375 6.50/6.5 Main steam Major
(538) (182) header outlet Cracking
lead (11)
P2 220 1967-86 NR 1000 1800 NR Main Steam Line Leak

(538) (124) Reducer
G1 880 1974-93 156,000 1000 3600 18/3.625 7.14/7.8 Main steam Leak
(538) (248) header outlet
lead (22)
1-5
a M-D: Mean-Diameter hoop stress = PR/t for R = mean radius; ASME = ASME allowable stress
Note: Stress values reported are based on nominal values; actual values may differ, as actual stresses are
not easily determined
b Grade 11: 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo; Grade 22: 2-1/4Cr1Mo
Table 1-2b
Summary of Seam-Welded Pipe Cracking and Failure Experience After 1993
Plant Unit Service Duty Cycle Oper. Oper. OD/wall Piping Component Incident
Ratin Period/ Temp. Pressure thickness Material
g MW Hours at F (C) psig (bar) inches Specification
Failure
AV2 450 1986-1998 Baseload 1005 A387 Gr22 HRH Pipe and Minor Cracking
(540) Clamshell
Elbows
GA5 229 1964-1985 Cyclic 1005 1800 A387 Gr22 HRH Wye Block Leak
(540) (120)a
MA1 348 1965-1999 Baseload 1000 531 30/1.15 A155 Gr1 HRH Pipe Minor Cracking
(538) (40)
N1 153 1966-1997 Baseload 1005 1865 18/0.9 A387 Gr12 HRH Pipe and Minor Cracking
(540) (130)a Clamshell
Elbows
NA3 803 1975-1999 Baseload 950 A387 Gr22 HRH Pipe Minor Cracking
(510)
MO2 700 1958-1997 Baseload 1005 530 38/2.016 A155 GrB HRH Clamshell Minor Cracking
(540) (40) Elbow
NA2 803 1974-1998 Baseload 1005 A387 Gr22 HRH Elbow Minor Cracking
(540)
ST1 202 1966-1998 Baseload 1005 A387 Gr22 HRH Long- Minor Cracking
(540) sweep Elbow
U -1997/ 955 575 27/0.9 A155 Gr11 HRH Clamshell Rupture

152,341 (513) (40) Elbow
C1 552 1972-1999/ Baseload 1005 2500 20/3.032 A387 Gr22 Main Steam Leak
198,000 (540) (170) Link
B3 446 1955-1998 Baseload A387 Gr22 Main Steam Minor Cracking

Link
FM1 500 1966-1996 Baseload 1005 A387 Gr22 Main Steam Rupture
(540) Link
G3 161 1957-1996 Load- 1000 1800 Main Steam Minor Cracking

Following (538) (120) Straight Run
SP -1996 14/3 Gr22 Main Steam Leak

(1Cr-1/2Mo) Link
H5 500 1967-1998 Cyclic 18/2.75 A387 Gr22 Main Steam Rupture

Vertical Run
1-6
HP4 40 1949-1998 Peaking 900 900 A387 Gr11 Main Steam Minor Cracking
(482) (60) Header Girth
Weld
K2 237 1965-1995 Cyclic 1000 2100 16/2.7 A387 Gr22 Main Steam Minor Cracking
(538) (140) Link
S1A 565 1965-1996 Baseloaded 1005 20/3.5 A387 Gr12 Main Steam Rupture
(540) Straight Run
CO2 13 1961-1996 Cyclic A387 Gr22 Main Steam Minor Cracking

Pressure Tap
Welds
CC3 350 1976-1997 Cyclic 1005 A387 Gr22 Main Steam Minor Cracking
(540) Thermowell
GA6 389 1957-1999 Baseload 1000 2600 A387 Gr22 Main Steam Minor Cracking
(538) (180) Wye Block
GE2 390 1967-1994 Cyclic A387 Gr22 Main Steam Minor Cracking
Elbow
GL8 60 1951-1995 Peaking CrMoV Main Steam Tee Leak
NU7 324 1949-1997 Baseload 18 A387 Gr22 Main Steam Tee Minor Cracking
SB1 147 1960-1995/ Baseload 1000 2000 14/2 Gr11 Main Steam Leak
278,500 (538) (140) Clamshell Elbow
ECG4 250 1962-2001/ 1000 465 20/0.832 A155 Gr11 HRH Long- Rupture
160,000 (538) (32) sweep Elbow
a boiler design (main steam) pressure; RH pressure not reported
Metallurgical Observations
Damage and Fracture Morphology
In the case of the HRH pipes of Table 1-1a, damage (cracking) consistently occurred at the
fusion line. Even in the case of Plant J, where major cracking was observed in the heat-affected
zone (HAZ) of a repair weld (crack located in original weld metal), fusion line cracking was also
observed. Similarly, in the case of Plant C, where Type IV or fine-grain HAZ cracking was the
major cracking mode, fusion line cracking was also noted. The fusion line cracking in HRH pipe
seam welds is a key observation in contrast with the main steam pipe seam-welds. Major
cracking was observed to occur at the fine-grained weld centerline that is heat-affected in a
multipass weld (Plants MS1, MS2) or at the HAZ (Type IV cracking, Plants MS3, G1). Figure
1-1 is a schematic showing the primary locations of cracking viewed in cross-section. Another
observation from data presented in Tables 1-2 and 1-3, is that the presence of non-fusion-line
cracking in all of the main steam (thick-wall) link piping and in the HRH piping at Plant C may
be related to a combination of the U-groove weld geometry and subcritical post-weld heat
treatment (PWHT).
1-7
Crack initiation has been attributed to pre-existing flaws in only a few cases. In most instances,
crack initiation was reported to have occurred at a subsurface (within-wall) location and
propagated by creep. Exceptions include Plant M1, where cracking initiated at the outside
diameter (OD) surface; Plant S1, where the inside diameter (ID) surface was originally reported
as the likely initiation site (initiation was subsequently inferred [2] to have probably occurred
subsurface by comparison with S2); and Plant H5, where the crack initiated on the ID of the
single J groove weld. Table 1-2 summarizes general observations relating to cracking
experience for each of the cases of Tables 1-1a and 1-1b where data are available.
In most of the HRH cases, the initiation zone coincided with the cusp formed by the double-V
joint design (see Figure 1-1). The macrophotograph in Figure 1-2 is an example of an advanced
stage of this form of cracking observed in a longitudinal seam-welded HRH pipe. In general,
this form of subsurface damage progresses to an advanced stage without any apparent OD
surface damage (creep cavitation or cracking). This causes difficulty with assessing longitudinal
seam weldment condition through OD surface replication (metallography). Another inference
made from the data of Table 1-2 is that a volumetric inspection using ultrasonic examination can
identify this form of subsurface damage in advance of failure. The fracture observations also
indicate that a range of flaw aspect ratios (depth-to-length ratios) have been experienced
(approximately 0.005 to >0.25).
1-8
Figure 1-1
Schematic showing primary cracking/damage locations observed in piping seam
weldments.
1-9
Table 1-3
Summary of Creep Damage Observations
Plant Crack Weld Crack Crack Direction Crack Path Final Crack Final Crack
Detection Geometry Initiation Depth, % of Length
Method Location wall
S1 Rupture Double-V IDa ID to OD a Fusion Line Through-wall 8 feet

(2.4 m)
S2 Leak Double-V 0.3 inch (8 Midwall to ID, Fusion Line Through-wall 8 inches on ID
mm) from ID then to OD (200 mm)
M1 Rupture Double-V OD OD to ID Fusion Line Through-wall 20 feet

(6.1 m)
M2 Rupture Double-V Midwall Midwall to ID, Fusion Line Through-wall 18 feet

then to OD (5.5 m)
F Visualb Double-V Midwall Midwall to ID, Fusion Line 95 >20 inches

then to OD (>0.5 m)
J UTc Double-V 0.375 inch Midwall to ID HAZ of Repair 60 9.5 inches

(9.5 mm) Weld; Fusion (for "HAZ of (240 mm)
from OD Line repair weld"
crack)
G2 UT Double-V 0.7 inch (18 Midwall to OD Fusion Line 75 14 inches

mm) from (360 mm)
OD
B UT Double-V 1.0 inch (25 Near midwall Fusion Line 15 Intermittent

mm) from 7 inches
OD (180 mm)
C UT, Plug U-groove Midwall Near midwall Fusion Line, 10 Not reported
Sample Type IV
MS1 Visual U-groove Midwall Midwall to OD Fine-Grain HAZ Not reported 9 inches
during UT at weld (230 mm) at OD
centerline
MS2 Leak U-groove Midwall Not Reported Fine-Grain HAZ Through-wall 26 inches (660
at weld mm) on OD
centerline 9 inches (230
mm) on ID
MS3 Visual U-groove 1.5 inches 1.5 inches from Fine Grain HAZ 44 10 inches (250
during UT suspected from OD OD (Type IV) mm) on OD
18.5 inches (470
mm) at midwall
G1 Leak U-groove Midwall Midwall to OD, Fine Grain HAZ Through-wall 33 inches (840
then to ID (Type IV) mm ) on OD
40 inches (1 m)
at midwall
5 inches (127
mm) on ID
H5 Rupture J-groove ID ID to OD Longitudinal Through-wall 9 feet, 11 inches

Split (3 m)
1-10
Plant Crack Weld Crack Crack Direction Crack Path Final Crack Final Crack
Detection Geometry Initiation Depth, % of Length
Method Location wall
SB1 Visual Not Reported Midwall Not Reported Fine-Grain HAZ Through-wall 10.5 inches (27
of Repair Weld mm) on OD
>10.5 inches
(>27 mm) on
midwall
<0.25 inch (0.63
mm) on ID
ECG4 Rupture Double-V Midwall Midwall to ID, Fusion line Through-wall 20 inches (510
then to OD mm) on OD
a: Reported as likely; subsequently inferred [2] to have possibly initiated and propagated as for S2
b: Found during replacement
c: UT = ultrasonic testing (examination)
1-11
Figure 1-2
Macrophotograph showing fusion line cracking on the weld metal side in sample from
Plant S2 [2].
1-12
The cracked or failed HRH pipe weldments exhibited evidence of varying degrees of creep
damage. Generally, the weld metal showed creep cavitation with the greatest cavitation noted in
the weld metal at, or very near the fusion line. In the case of M1, however, little or no cavitation
in weld metal or fusion line was reported. The extent of cavitation was variable: none in the case
of Plant M1, isolated in the case of Plant G, and profuse in the case of Plant J. In the Type IV
(fine-grain HAZ) failures in the main steam pipe seam welds, the failed zone showed strong
evidence of creep cavitation. In at least two instances, MS3 and G1, the weld showed little or no
evidence of creep damage while the fine-grain HAZ evidently underwent significant creep
cavitation and cracking.
Based on failure incidents reported through 1993, Type IV cracking has not been observed in
HRH pipe seam weldments in the United States. However, the observation of Type IV creep
damage (in addition to fusion line cracking) in an HRH pipe seam weldment of an overseas
power plant [5] indicates that a combination of a U-groove weld geometry and a subcritical
PWHT may be the common denominator in all of the seam weldment failures involving non-
fusion-line cracking. The experience on Type IV cracking in seam weldments is significantly
less extensive and less quantitative than is that on fusion line cracking. These Guidelines focus
on the commonly observed cracking in near-fusion-line regions of seam weldments, comprising
the only observed forms of cracking in HRH seam-welded piping in the United States from 1957
to 1993. Seam-welded, header link-pipe main steam sections that have shown a susceptibility to
Type IV cracking and failure (see Tables 1-1a, 1-1b, and 1-2) are less rigorously treated.
The nature of the damage and microcracking often observed is noteworthy. Figure 1-3 is an
optical micrograph of the microcracking observed in a seam-welded pipe cross-section of S2 [2].
The discontinuous, staggered microcrack pattern is largely confined to the near-fusion-line
region in weld metal. In addition, the microcracks are oriented perpendicular to the applied hoop
stress direction. The combination of orientation and confinement results in the staggered pattern
observed. Examination of various cross-sections of pipe in the case of S2 showed a gradient in
damage from the near-cusp, or midwall region to the inside diameter (ID) location. The gradient
is manifested as a decreasing microcrack size going from cusp to ID. The observations are not
unlike those made in other HRH seam weld cases such as M2 and S1. The pattern of
microcracking suggests that microcrack growth rates abruptly decrease going away from the
fusion line, and that damage occurs by progressive initiation of cracks through the cross-section,
with final failure probably occurring by link-up of these microcracks to critical size. The
observation also supports the possibility of generating very long (length parallel to pipe axis)
cracks with short depth dimension, a factor that increases the likelihood of rupture (break) over
leak.
1-13
Effect of Metallurgical Variables
Table 1-3 summarizes the key metallurgical variables associated with each of the cases described
in Tables 1-1a, 1-1b, and 1-2 for which pertinent data have been reported.
Pre-existing Defects. Pre-existing defects refer to flaws occurring as a result of plate, and
weldment fabrication. Examples of these include slag inclusions, lack-of-fusion, porosity,
incomplete weld metal penetration, and weld solidification cracks. A toe-crack, initiating at the
weld-base metal toe at the surface, generally driven by a stress intensification due to a
geometric discontinuity, may also be considered a pre-existing defect.
According to available data, with the single exception of Plant M1 (see Table 1-3) where
cracking initiated in, and just below, the OD cover weld pass, all other flaws reported to be
significant in HRH piping have been located at the ID or the midwall. From the results of the
1986 survey [3] and the later survey by Marschall et al. [4], it has become apparent that a large
percentage of these flaws are nonpropagating. For example, the two surveys indicated that of a
total of 32 flaws, 23 flaws (these flaws were fabrication-related) were considered
nonpropagating, as evidenced by the absence of creep cavitation or microcracking associated
with the flaws. These flaws were located in the weld metal. In contrast, with very few
exceptions, all the propagating flaws were located near the weld fusion line. The nonpropagating
flaws were in the depth size range, 10 to 20% (0.10.2 inch or 25 mm) of the wall thickness,
with one very large flaw of 0.375 inch (9.53 mm) depth (30% of wall). Even the largest of these
flaws, which was a weld repair related crack, had not resulted in further propagation. Results of
a 1993 EPRI survey of utility inspection experience, described in a following subsection, has
shown the presence of hundreds of flaws, some exceeding 0.2 inch (5 mm) in depth, and also
nonpropagating. Although the specific locations of these flaws are unknown, the nonpropagating
nature of the flaws is consistent with the earlier survey-based observations.
Of the 17 cases of rupture, leaks, and major cracking reported in Table 1-1a, pre-existing defects
were reported to be present only in 5 instances. Pre-existing defects, while potential contributors
to damage and failure, are not a necessary condition for cracking and failure.
1-14
Figure 1-3
Optical micrograph showing microcrack damage in sample from Plant S2. Note
discontinuous nature and orientation of microcracks.
1-15
Table 1-4
Metallurgical Observations in Cracking and Failure Instances
Plant Pre-existing Inclusiona Creep Cavitation Hardness Post-weld

Defect? WM/FL H. T.b
S1 None Low/Low WM and FL Uniform N&T

RB 82-84
S2 None Low/Low WM and FL Uniform N&T

RB 72-76
M1 OD toe crack Aver./High FL only Uniform 1700F Anneal

RB 81-84
M2 None Ave./Ave. WM and FL Uniform N&T

RB 76-82
F Slag Inclusion Not Reported FL only Not Reported N&T

/High
J Lack-of-Fusion; Ave./Ave. WM and FL; profuse Uniform N & T;

Nonec in weld metal RB 67-75 Subcritical for
repair weld
G2 Slag Inclusion Ave./Ave. WM and FL; isolated Uniform Subcritical

in WM RB 70
B Solidification Ave./Ave. Not reported Not Reported Subcritical

Crack
C None Not Reported/ Fine-grain HAZ (Type Not Reported Subcritical

Not Reported IV)
None in weld
MS1 None Low/Low Fine-Grain HAZ at Not Reported Subcritical

weld centerline
MS2 None Low/Low Fine-Grain HAZ at Uniform, but values Subcritical

weld centerline not reported
MS3 None Not Reported/ Fine-Grain HAZ dWM/BM: Subcritical

Not Reported (Type IV) RB 82-85.
HAZ: RB 72-79
G1 None Not Reported/ Not Reported Uniform Subcritical

Not Reported RB 68-76
ECG4 None WM N&T
a: Inclusion content based on oxygen, micrographs (see Figure 3-10d), or as reported.

b: N&T = Normalized and Tempered; Subcritical = less than lower critical temperature; H.T.= Heat
Treatment.
c: Two cracks noted.
d: Approximated from Vickers (Hv 0.5) hardness data.
1-16
Weld Inclusions and Composition. The one factor common to all of the damaged/failed
HRH pipes examined through 1993 is that they were fabricated by the submerged arc (SA)
welding process. SA welding is a process in which the interaction between the flux and the
molten weld pool can result in relatively high concentrations of nonmetallic inclusions in the
weld deposit. Further, laboratory studies have shown that the type of flux used has an
appreciable effect on the type and concentration of inclusions, and on the stress rupture behavior
[6]. Indeed, the rupture of the HRH seam-welded piping in M1 [7] was reported to have
occurred as a result of localized, near-fusion-line cracking in weld metal, in a region of high
inclusion content. A laboratory investigation of the effect of flux acidity on inclusion and
rupture behavior of submerged arc welds by Henry et al. [6] has shown that generally inferior
rupture properties (time-to-rupture and rupture ductility) are attributable to the increased
inclusion content resulting from increased flux acidity. Some creep voids were observed to
contain inclusion particles, and the role of grain boundary inclusion particles in accelerating
creep void formation and damage can be significant. In addition, inclusions have been shown [5]
to lead to severe reduction in the impact toughness as manifested by a lower Charpy upper-shelf
impact energy.
The majority of in-service HRH seam-welded piping in the U.S. has been fabricated using acid
or neutral flux compositions. In some cases, acid flux has been used for the inside surface and
basic or neutral fluxes for the outside surface fill and cup passes. The acidity may be measured
via a Basicity Index [8], which roughly translates to a weld metal bulk oxygen content of >700
ppm for an acid flux, 500700 ppm for a neutral flux, and <500 ppm for a basic flux.
Henry et al. [6] concluded that inferior (to base metal) elevated temperature rupture behavior can
be expected in the case of neutral-to-acid flux-fabricated weldments. Further, the gradient in
inclusion content arising from the solidification characteristics of a typical weld pool expectedly
results in an increased inclusion content at the fusion line with associated inferior creep
properties at this location [6]. In effect, longitudinal pipe seams with high-oxygen-content weld
metal may be considered to be at a greater risk of failure in elevated temperature service.
However, the usefulness of weld metal oxygen (O2) content alone as a screening (for risk)
parameter is uncertain. Failures have been experienced in cases of O2 content at the low-end of
the in-service spectrum (e.g., S1, S2 [2]; 600900 ppm), and numerous weldments with
relatively high O2 content (>700 ppm) have performed well (e.g., see review of Wells and
Viswanathan [9]). The bulk O2 content also need not reflect the local inclusion density at, for
example, the fusion line. Analyses of M1 indicated a neutral flux weld based on bulk O2
content, but showed a high inclusion density at the fusion line [7]. Conversely, the fusion line
regiontointerior weld metal gradients in inclusion content have, in some failure instances, been
insignificant, with the total inclusion content being low (e.g., S2 [2]), suggesting that other
variables may be of equal, if not greater, importance. In fact, review of the qualitative
observations summarized in Table 1-3 shows the wide range of inclusion density associated with
the cracked and failed seam-welded pipe cases; i.e., relatively clean weldments can fail under
certain conditions.
Heat Treatment. The effect of weldment heat treatment has received scrutiny in light of the
fact that all three ruptured HRH pipes (see Tables 1-1a and 1-3; S1, M1, M2) and some
clamshell elbows which cracked had been given a high-temperature annealing or normalized and
tempered (N&T) treatment. However, cracking has also been subsequently observed in other
HRH pipes which had been given a lower-temperature post-weld stress relief, or subcritical heat
1-17
treatment below the lower-critical temperature (e.g., G2, B, C). In the case of the thick-walled
main steam link and lead pipes that have leaked/cracked (MS1, MS2, MS3, G1), the weldments
had all received a subcritical heat treatment.
The stress rupture behavior of weldments has not shown a consistent trend with respect to the
effect of heat treatment. The short-term tests of Henry et al. [6] suggest little or no effect of heat
treatment on rupture behavior. However, their results on elevated carbon (C), acid flux
weldments show that the increase in C has opposing effects on rupture behavior for the N&T,
versus the subcritically heat-treated weldments. The subcritical heat treatment case showed a
decreased rupture life with increased C (compared with the normal C content acid flux
weldment tested), whereas the N&T case showed a slightly increased rupture life with increased
C. Conversely, it has been suggested [7] that the recrystallization process associated with the
N&T treatment can result in an increased inclusion density at grain boundaries in the fusion line
region, thereby increasing the susceptibility to near-fusion-line creep cavitation (at grain
boundary inclusions) and cracking. In summary, no conclusive evidence has been gathered with
respect to the effect of heat treatment on seam-welded pipe performance.
Failure of seam-welded piping has occurred regardless of the type of heat treatment. Some
observations are noteworthy. All of the N&T pipes cited in Table 1-3 experienced cracking
along the fusion line. In contrast, the subcritically heat treated pipes showed several
cracking/failure locations: the HRH pipes of Plants B and G2 cracked at the fusion line; the HRH
pipe from Plant C showed cracking at the fusion line as well as in the Type IV (fine-grain) HAZ;
all of the main steam pipes listed in Table 1-1a showed cracking at the weld centerline or in the
Type IV HAZ, and never at the fusion line. While no conclusions can be drawn on the basis of
heat treatment alone, as stated earlier, the subcritical PWHT in combination with the U-groove
weld geometry is a common denominator in all cases of non-fusion-line cracking where data are
available.
Composition. In addition to the O2 content (a measure of inclusion content), a variety of

impurity elements (Cu, S, P, Sb, Sn), capable of embrittling the low-alloy steel, have been
observed on freshly fractured near-fusion-line material (e.g., in the case of M1 [7]). In addition,
reduced carbon (C) can reduce creep resistance and rupture life [6, 9]. However, the comparable
chemistries of failed (or cracked), and uncracked, in-service longitudinal seam welds suggest that
such composition effects are yet inconclusive [9]. Furthermore, gradients in chemistry from
solidification or from variation in flux with weld pass are virtually impossible to measure or
predict. The conflicting observation of elevated C, and lowered Si and O2 content in the near-
fusion-line, failed zone of S2 [2] is an example supporting the current lack of finality on
composition effects. Indeed, there exist many miles of piping, seam-welded by the SA process
using an acid flux, with the weld metal containing significant impurity levels, that have
performed satisfactorily. Inclusion and composition effects must therefore be considered in
conjunction with the other factors of significance such as the operating conditions of temperature
and stress.
Hardness and Strength Mismatch. Hardness, a direct measure of tensile (time-

independent) strength, has been used as a tool to estimate the remaining creep (time-dependent)
life of low-alloy steel components [10]. In-service changes in tensile strength and hardness are
often a result of time- and temperature-dependent microstructure changes that directly correlate
1-18
with reductions in remaining life due to creep (e.g., microstructure coarsening of low-alloy
steel). The complexity and inhomogeneity of low-alloy steel weldment microstructures,
however, makes the predictability of rupture life from microstructural changes and simple
hardness measurements very difficult at best. On the other hand, if hardness is to be considered
a reasonable measure of creep resistance, it could be used as a tool to nondestructively establish
the relative variability in creep resistance and creep rate across the various zones of a weldment.
This creep rate variability can result in stress redistribution causing local stress intensification
and triaxiality, resulting in premature weldment cracking and failure (see below). Indeed, Bissell
et al. [11] have shown a correlation between the hardness differential in weldment zones and the
observed creep cavitation damage in seam-welded Grade 22 (2-1/4Cr1Mo) HRH piping. The
possibility of using the hardness differential measurement to predict the performance of in-
service seam-welded piping was investigated by review of the available hardness data in several
of the ex-service seam-welded pipe cases. These included Plants S1, S2, M1, M2, G2, J, G1, and
MS3 of Table 1-1a, where significant cracking or failures had occurred, and Plant W from
Reference 12.
Table 1-4 shows a summary of the average hardness measurements for each of the weldment
zones of these pipe cases. The data show that the base metal and weld metal average hardness-
levels are comparable. Further, the room-temperature hardness differentials also do not
necessarily reflect differences in creep rate between various weldment zones. This is indicated
by the data of Plant W [12], where, at 10 ksi (7 MPa) and 1000F (538C), the weld metal
showed a creep rate roughly 10 times that of the adjacent base metal, even though the room-
temperature hardness was uniform across the weldment. Therefore, hardness differential does
not appear to be a reliable screening tool for identifying pipes at risk.
Review of the cross-weld hardness profiles as reported for many of the cases, summarized in
Figure 1-4, showed that the HRH pipe weldment cases (Figure 1-4a), which were all heat-treated
at temperatures above the lower-critical temperature (approximately 1500F or 810C), had a
relatively uniform profile. In contrast, the main steam pipe weldment case, MS3, which was
subcritically post-weld heat-treated, showed a soft zone approximately coincident with the
Type IV or fine-grain HAZ zone (see Figure 1-4b). Indeed, this zone experienced cracking in
service, so that the potential exists for using the relative softening in this zone for predicting in-
service Type IV HAZ damage in seam-welded thick-wall main steam pipe sections that have
been subcritically post-weld heat-treated. However, the available quantitative data on hardness
measurements in thick-wall seam-welded piping are insufficient for definitive conclusions on the
use of hardness differentials as a tool for predicting behavior in such piping. Note that the Type
IV soft zone is not anticipated in weldments that are heat-treated to temperatures exceeding the
lower-critical temperature.
Weld Geometry. It is now generally accepted that the cusp region of the fusion line of a
double-V seam weld is a location where the hoop stress intensifies and the stress state becomes
increasingly triaxial (constrained) as the mismatch in the creep rate between the base metal and
the weld metal increases [13, 14]. Figure 1-5, reproduced from Stevick and Finnie [14], shows
the finite element analysis-based estimate of the magnitude of the intensification at a 30 weld
cusp for a given level of mismatch (R = weld metal creep rate/base metal creep rate = 5). Wells
[13] has similarly shown intensification and constraint estimates of stresses at the near-fusion-
line cusp region. Subsequently, Samuelson et al. [15] also investigated the stress redistribution
1-19
effected by creep rate mismatch. Their results are consistent with those of Wells [13] and
Stevick and Finnie [14].
1-20
Figure 1-4
Hardness profiles across ex-service seam weldments in (a) HRH pipes with weldments
heat-treated above lower-critical temperatures (note uniform profile); and (b) main steam
pipe with weldment subcritically post-weld heat-treated (note soft Type IV HAZ region).
1-21
Table 1-5
Summary of Average Hardness in Zones of Seam Weldments in Pipe Sections that Have
Experienced Major Cracking or Failure
Plant Weld Metal HAZ* Base Metal
S1 84 RB -- 82 RB
S2 156.4 DPH -- 153.7 DPH
M1 82.7 RB -- 81 RB
M2 76 - 81.5 RB -- 81 - 84.5 RB
G2 115.4 DPH 117.2 DPH 118.8 DPH
J 67 - 75 RB -- 67 - 75 RB
G1 131 DPH 144 DPH 125 DPH
W 145 DPH 152 DPH 147 DPH
MS3 169.5 DPH 147.0 DPH 156.4 DPH
* Data reported only in the case of subcritically heat-treated weldments with distinct HAZ
The effects of increasing constraint on reducing ductility are not known enough to permit
adequate quantification of the life reduction due to this cusp effect. However, it is clear that the
stress intensification can result in a localized initiation of cracking, and a quantifiable reduction
in rupture life estimable from, for example, the ASTM Stress-Larson-Miller Parameter rupture
curves for the material [16, 17]. The following example illustrates the potential rupture life
reduction effect. For a stress intensification of 1.4 (see Figure 1-5), a mean diameter hoop stress
of 44 MPa (6.4 ksi) for 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo pipe is intensified to 61.6 MPa (8.9 ksi) at the seam weld
cusp. This level of stress intensification, if applied, suggests a 70% stress reduction penalty
requirement on seam-welded pipe design, and predicts a rupture life equal to approximately 15%
of that for the case without stress intensification. The example is only intended to illustrate the
potential effect of cusp stress intensification on rupture life. In reality, the weld/base metal creep
rate ratio, R, can vary from weldment to weldment, and change with service time for a given
weldment, so that quantitative prediction of the cusp effect is generally difficult.
1-22
Figure 1-5
Finite element analysis-based prediction of the stress intensification at the cusp due to a
mismatch of the weld/base metal creep rate (R) [14].
1-23
In most fusion line cracking found in HRH pipe seam weldments, particularly the cracked and
failed pipe sections of Plant S2 [2], damage occurred in the form of heterogeneous initiation
(generally at the weld cusp) of a crack or microcrack damaged zone. This was followed by crack
growth or growth of the microcrack damaged zone and final failure. The microcrack damaged
zone consists of discontinuous microcracks (see Figure 1-3) with the zone gradually growing
across the pipe wall. No attempt has been made to mechanistically model and predict growth of
such a zone in development of these Guidelines. Rather, an empirically benchmarked, laboratory
creep crack growth test data-based approach has been used to estimate the growth of a
microcrack damaged zone, as well as the growth of a single crack (see Section 2). The
Guidelines have been essentially developed via a flaw tolerance-based approach, wherein seam-
welded pipe integrity is maintained by inspection for flaws, followed by a benchmarked crack
growth-based prediction of remaining life; a default crack is assumed where no flaws are
found.
It is noteworthy that the weld-base metal creep rate mismatch can result in an accelerated creep
crack growth rate at the fusion line, analytically predicted to be accelerated by a factor of two to
three for a mismatch, R = 5 [14]. The rupture lifebased prediction of weldment integrity, on the
other hand, is used primarily as a screening criterion for preliminary assessment of pipes at risk,
with the cracking and failure experience benchmarked against simple rupture life-based
predictions of failure. The specifics of how the creep rupture and crack growth rate data are used
in evaluating seam-welded steam pipes are described in later sections.
Finally, as indicated earlier, it is noted that the U-groove weld geometry in combination with the
subcritical PWHT was found to be the common denominator in all the cases of non-fusion-line
cracking.
Effect of Pipe Configuration and System Loads
Unlike girth welds, seam welds in straight pipe spool pieces do not experience a radial variation
in stress to favor an increasing damage toward the easily inspected OD surface. In addition, the
generally lower creep deformation resistance of the seam-weld metal (with respect to the base
metal) results in increased hoop stress on the weld metal. This is in contrast to the situation in
girth welds, where hoop stresses in weld metal are reduced [18].
Buchheim et al. [19] have shown, by finite element stress analyses, that a weld roof or peak can
result in an increase of the hoop stress due to pressure at the weld, relative to that for a perfectly
circular cross-section. Their results, for Grade 11, 36 inch (910 mm) diameter, 0.5 inch (10 mm)
thick, high-temperature refinery pipe with an approximately 22 deviation from a perfectly
circular section (estimated roof-angle from Figure 2 in [19]), suggest that this intensification at
the near-ID is >400% initially (no creep), reducing to 40% following relaxation due to creep.
The intensification, averaged over about one-half the wall thickness to the ID, appears to be
roughly 200% initially to 40% following relaxation. Typical HRH pipe thickness-to-radius
ratios are much higher than the case of Reference 19, resulting in a significantly lower predicted
intensification effect. Note that the cracked, seam-welded HRH pipe bends of case S2 [2], have
a thickness-to-radius ratio of more than three times that of [19], and showed an approximately
10 roof-angle, less than one-half that for the pipe of Reference 19. The elastically estimated
1-24
intensification is roughly 23% at the ID for this geometry. The roof or peaking condition may
thus accelerate damage at the near-ID surface. Where a cusp effect is also present, the cusp and
ID represent competing maximum hoop stress locations for damage initiation. This is evidenced
in the peaked bends of case S2 [2], where at certain locations, damage was observed at the cusp
and at the ID, but with none in between. The overall cracking and failure experience with seam-
welded high-energy piping in power plants, in general, does not show a correlation between roof-
angle and damage/failure for the roof-angle effect that can be quantitatively applied to operating
steam lines. This may be due to a combination of variables, such as operating, geometric,
material, etc., influencing pipe performance, making the effect of any single variable such as
roof-angle difficult to isolate and quantify. In addition, the potential effect of roof-angle on
creep crack and damage zone growth rate at the ID and cusp is currently not predictable. The
crack growth-based approach of these Guidelines has been benchmarked against the range of
cracking and failure experience including that of peaked pipe (S2, and probably S1), so that
special treatment of the roof-angle effect is not offered. Similarly, pipe ovality may also
contribute to locally increased hoop stress. Again, the lack of data on time-dependent effects and
the overall failure/cracking experience do not permit quantitative treatment of the pipe ovality
effect in these Guidelines. Note that seam-welded pipe bends may be more likely to have a
peaking or oval cross-section from the ovalizing tendency during the bending operation (for
bends, Power Piping Code B31.1 permits a difference between maximum and minimum pipe
diameter up to 8% of the average diameter measured before bending).
A second issue related to seam-welded pipe bends (where the seam is typically located at the
neutral zone of the bend) is that bending moments in the plane of the bend can cause additional
hoop stress on the weldment. System loads resulting in a bending moment to open up the pipe
bend cause an ovalizing tendency that increases the hoop stress at the neutral bend zone
location, with tension at the ID to midwall, and compression at the near-OD locations. A
reversal in bending moment reverses the stress distribution across the wall. For approximately
the maximum expansion stress range permissible under the ASME B31.1 Power Piping Code,
the elastic membrane hoop stress (due to in-plane bending alone) is roughly 10% of the hoop
stress due to pressure for a 5D bend and 4% of the hoop stress due to pressure for a 3D bend
(calculated from [20], for a 0.1 wall thickness-to-pipe radius ratio). The issue has been briefly
discussed [2] within the context of the limited elastic-plastic stress analyses results that have
been published. As with the pipe cross-section effect, the system load effect on bends cannot be
isolated and quantified from the overall cracking and failure experience.
Clamshell elbows (seam weld, each at intrados and extrados; e.g., F of Table 1-1a) have been
reported to be at increased risk of creep damage [9]. The handbook, elastically estimated hoop
stress across the intrados weld (due to pressure) is greater than that in a straight section subjected
to the same internal pressure, by roughly 5% to 10% for bend radii of 5 to 3 times the pipe
diameter.
Seam-welded pipe bends, and clamshell elbows and other fittings, as discussed above, may be
subjected to hoop stresses greater than experienced by straight sections. As detailed later in the
report, the Guidelines procedures for evaluating seam-welded piping are essentially crack growth
prediction-based, using inspection results. The effects of pipe configuration and system loads on
creep crack growth are currently not known. For this reason, and due to the general inability to
adequately incorporate the effect of the range of variables on crack growth, the evaluation
procedures have been developed in an empirical manner by benchmarking the crack growth-
1-25
based predictions against the field experience. Field experience includes two cases of bends and
one clamshell elbow. Bends and elbows are given special treatment only in regard to the
screening criterion established for requiring inspection and a crack growth-based evaluation
(Sections 2 and 3).
Material Properties of Service-Exposed Weldments
Stress Rupture Properties
It is becoming increasingly evident that the "local" stress acting on a pipe seam weld due to the
creep redistribution of applied primary and system stresses can be a significant contributor to
seam weld cracking and failure. In addition to this redistribution effect, the in-service weldment
creep rupture behavior may be inherently inferior to that of corresponding base metal. The
potentially inferior (to an all-base-metal section) performance is not captured in the current
design for Class 1 welds where allowable stresses are equal to those for base metal. The damage
in welds may therefore exceed that expected from assuming the weld metal to have a creep
response comparable to that of base metal.
Figures 1-6a and b show how the field cracking and failure experience compares against what
can be expected on the basis of the conventional ASME (or ASTM) stress-rupture life (design)
curves [16, 17] for (a) 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo (P11), and (b) 2-1/4Cr1Mo (P22) steel. In each case, the
applied stress is approximated by the mean-diameter hoop stress due to pressure. It can be
concluded, on the basis of the ASME Code (B31.1) allowable stress, that major cracking and
failures of seam-welded pipes have occurred prematurely (points below the design curves). That
is, the actual service life of the pipe seam weldments under the nominal conditions of
temperature and stress due to pressure is significantly lower than the life expected from the
ASME design-basis rupture life curves. Only in Plant B has a pre-existing defect been reported
that would explain a fraction of the apparent life reduction.
Predictions of in-service seam weldment life based simply on the ASME base metal stress-
rupture life curves can be inaccurate. In addition to pre-existing defects, the extent of inaccuracy
could include: (1) differences between the rupture properties of base metal (ASME) and weld
metal or weldments due to material-related variables such as chemistry, microstructure, etc.; and
(2) the in-service pipe weldment behavior under stress redistribution and intensification from
pipe configuration, cross-section geometry, weld-base metal cusp angle and creep rate mismatch,
which are not reflected in the data represented by the ASME curves. In general, the application
of a rupture life-based performance prediction ideally requires that both the applied stress and the
rupture life curve be accurately known for a particular weldment. As an alternative to this
impractical requirement, Paterson has suggested [21] that the stress rupture curve can be
empirically located on a stress-time temperature parameter (e.g., Larson-Miller) plot on the basis
of pipe configuration, cross-section geometry, weld-base metal cusp angle and creep rate
mismatch, system loads, service exposure, etc. Application of the rupture-based approach to
bounding life estimation is then simply conducted using the empirically adjusted curve and
conventionally estimated applied stress. Post-exposure isostress rupture testing can also be
conducted [21] with the test specimen size effect on the remaining life prediction being
empirically estimated. These Guidelines recommend evaluation procedures (based on inspection
1-26
results) that are essentially crack growth-based and do not include any estimation of weldment-
specific stress rupture properties. The stress rupture behavior is only used to screen piping
requiring inspection (see Sections 2 and 3).
1-27
Figure 1-6a
Stress-Larson-Miller Parameter (P) curves for 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo (P11) with failure/cracking
experience (Table 1-1a) plotted for comparison.
1-28
Figure 1-6b
Stress-Larson-Miller Parameter (P) curves for 2-1/4Cr1Mo (P22) with failure/cracking
experience (Table 1-1a) plotted for comparison.
1-29
Figures 1-7 and 1-8 are comparisons of the available cross-weld specimen rupture data on ex-
service piping with the ASME (or ASTM) data for comparable size specimens of 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo
[16] and 2-1/4Cr1Mo [17] base metal, respectively. The as-measured, cross-weld data (Figures
1-7a and 1-8a) are consistently below the ASME Average curve, and often below the Minimum
curve. To eliminate the degradation effect of service exposure, the data have been corrected
for service exposure by adding to the actual ex-service data, an estimate of the equivalent
exposure time (for the test temperature and stress) representing the life-fraction consumed in
service. The life-fraction consumed was estimated by extrapolating the observed stress-LMP
rupture data to the service stress (mean diameter hoop stress due to pressure). In most instances,
this extrapolation had to be made since isostress data were insufficient for a direct estimate. The
corrected data (Figures 1-7b, 1-8b) are intended to represent an estimate of new weld
properties extrapolated from the ex-service properties.
The data have been assembled from various sources, including References [4] (Plants as
identified in [4]: JJ (J), GG-II (G2), J (M1), E, VV, F, G, Y, Z, PP, QQ, UU, with parenthesized
designators as in Table 1-1a); [22] (WRC), [23] (H), [24] (M2), and [25] (SS, SB). It can be
seen from Figures 1-7 and 1-8, that the new cross-weld data inferred from ex-service data are
also consistently below the ASME Average curve, and often at, or below the Minimum curve.
While the potential inaccuracy in extrapolating from ex-service to new material rupture
properties is recognized, the data nevertheless show that the performance of weldments can be
inferior to that of base metal when compared on the basis of conventional estimations of stress
and stress vs. Larson-Miller parameter curves.
1-30
Figure 1-7a
Cross-weld stress rupture data on 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo ex-service pipe seam weldments;
italicized designators are Plant cases from Reference 4.
1-31
Figure 1-7b
Cross-weld stress rupture data on 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo ex-service pipe seam weldments,
corrected for service exposure (from Figure 1-7a).
1-32
Figure 1-8a
Cross-weld stress rupture data on 2-1/4Cr1Mo ex-service pipe seam weldments; italicized
designators are Plant cases from Reference 4, designators in parentheses are as for Table
1-1a.
1-33
Figure 1-8b
Cross-weld stress rupture data on 2-1/4Cr1Mo ex-service pipe seam weldments, corrected
for service exposure (from Figure 1-8a).
1-34
Creep Crack Growth
In addition to the ex-service weldment rupture data, creep crack growth laboratory data on
similar, service-exposed seam weldments have also been reviewed and analyzed within the
context of pipe seam weldment integrity management.
All weld metal and fusion line data available in 1993 were obtained from laboratory creep-crack
growth tests on ex-service HRH pipe seam weldments for review and consolidation for the 1996
version of the Guidelines. The data represented a major expansion of the 1987 database, and
provided a more realistic basis for predicting in-service crack growth. Figures 1-9 and 1-10
graphically summarize the creep crack growth rate data for weld metal and for near-fusion-line
material, respectively. The data for Grades 11 (1-1/4Cr1/2Mo) and 22 (2-1/4Cr1Mo) were
consolidated since no evidence could be found that the crack growth rate properties (as defined
by the crack growth rate algorithm) differ. The data were obtained on ex-service seam
weldments from various sources: Plants W [12], M2 [24], JJ (J in Table 1-1a) and VV [4], M1
[26], and laboratory-aged cases, Weld I and Weld II [27]. The creep-rate-dependent parameters,
C* and Ct, are as defined in Reference 28 and apply to all data sets except JJ and VV, for which
the parameter Cj, as defined in Reference 29, applies.
Table 1-5 summarizes the crack growth algorithm constants and measure of scatterband width
(standard deviation) for the curves of Figures 1-9 and 1-10. The constants pertain to:
da/dt = C3 (Ct or C*)q (1-1)
where da/dt is the crack growth rate in inch/hr, Ct and C* are as stated above in units of ksi-in/hr,
and C3 and q are constants defining the particular growth rate algorithm. Also presented in
Table 1-5 is the standard deviation in the Log10(C3) prediction representing the scatter in the
da/dt-Ct prediction. For comparison, Table 1-5 also contains the constants for the algorithm
recommended as a default in PCPIPE version 3.0 [31]. For qualitative comparison, Figure 1-11
graphically shows the PCPIPE defaults superimposed on the weld metal crack-growth
scatterband of Figure 1-9. The defaults represent generally conservative crack growth rate
predictions, being at or above the weld metal and fusion line material data scatterband. The
following section describes how in-service crack growth predictions based on the data are
benchmarked against the field experience.
The evaluation procedure provided herein involves computation of the most generally applicable
parameter, Ct. Ct is a measure of the rate at which the creep zone expands at the crack tip, and is
applicable under small scale creep as well as large scale creep conditions. Cj is essentially
identical to Ct and C* is the parameter value that Ct reduces to under large-scale creep
conditions. The open literature contains [32, 33] details on these parameters, their definitions,
and the manner in which they are computed for a given geometry, set of loading conditions, and
material creep properties. The following pertinent aspects relating to estimation of the
parameters is summarized:
1-35
The crack-driving parameter, Ct, increases as the material creep rate increases. The material
creep rate is generally described by the functional dependence of creep strain rate, & on
stress, , and temperature, T:
& = f(, T) (1-2)
which can include a primary creep rate prediction of the form:
1
& = [B(1+p)]1/(1+p)m 1+ p t-p/(1+p) (1-3)
in addition to the well-known secondary, or minimum creep rate Norton law:
& = Anexp(-Q/T) (1-4)
where B, p, m, A, n, and Q are constants.
Cross-weld tests on ex-service seam weldments have provided additional insight into the
behavior of weld metal and near-fusion-line material [4]. The updated creep strain rate data
have improved the confidence in the accuracy of the Ct prediction. Table 1-6 summarizes
the state-of-knowledge on creep strain rate-stress and temperature dependence. Included in
the table with the new results [4] are constants for the defaults in the EPRI Boiler Life
Evaluation and Simulation System (BLESS) Code [34] and PCPIPE that are applied to weld
metal, base metal and HAZ material of Grades 11 and 22. Constants are reported for strain
rate in h-1, stress in ksi, and temperature in R for Eq. (1-4).
Two identically geometric, cracked, and loaded sections will experience rates of crack
growth that depend on the magnitude of Ct, which, in turn, depends on the section material
creep rate. Even if the two materials have a virtually identical crack growth rate-Ct
dependence, the faster-creeping material (lower creep resistance) will result in a higher
estimate of the crack-driver, Ct, and therefore a faster crack growth rate. So, a comparable
crack growth rate-Ct dependence does not imply comparable crack growth rates if the creep
resistance differs, all else being equal. The comment underlies the importance of the creep
strain rate predictability in influencing the accuracy of the crack growth prediction.
1-36
Figure 1-9
Creep crack growth data for weld metal, derived from tests on ex-service seam weldments.
1-37
Figure 1-10
Creep crack growth data for fusion line material, derived from tests on ex-service seam
weldments.
1-38
Figure 1-11
Default crack growth algorithms from PCPIPE version 3.0 [31] superimposed on the weld
metal and fusion line material data scatterband (from Figures 1-9 and 1-10).
1-39
Table 1-6
Creep Crack Growth Rate Algorithms (of Eq. 1-1)
Material C3 q One Standard

Deviation on
Log10(C3)
Grades 11 & 22 Weld 4.674 E-02 0.7372 0.3657

Metal*
Grades 11 & 22 Fusion 1.0461 E-01 0.8612 0.3245

Line**
Grades 11 and 22
Fusion Line and HAZ; 1.23 E-01 0.546 Not applicable
Default in PCPIPE [31]
* see Figure 1-9

** see Figure 1-10
Table 1-7
Dependence of Creep Strain Rate on Stress and Temperature (Eq. 1-4)
Material A n Q
Grade 11 Weld, Base Metal, & Coarse Grain HAZ

(Default in BLESS [34]) 3.712 E+11 8.00 82,432
Grade 11
Ex-service Cross-Weld* [4] 1.640 E+17 4.03 91,874
Grade 22 Weld, Base Metal, & Coarse Grain HAZ

(Default in BLESS [34]) 7.315 E+13 10.075 99,648
Grade 22
Ex-service Cross-Weld [4] 2.305 E+12 6.93 84,043
PCPIPE 3.0 Grade 11 Weld/HAZ/Default [31] 7.319 E+11 8.00 82,345
PCPIPE 3.0 Grade 22 HAZ/FL [31] 7.697 E+05 9.90 73,046
* Based on very limited data (only one ex-service weldment)
1-40
There is some evidence to indicate that for a given crack and weldment geometry and for a
given set of loading conditions, the crack growth rate is faster in material where the inclusion
density is higher. Liaw et al. [26] have demonstrated via laboratory tests that the higher
inclusion density zone shows a higher da/dt-Ct relation, roughly one standard deviation
above the median prediction for weld metal (see Table 1-3). The median prediction for weld
metal approximately coincided with the average inclusion-density material behavior.
Stevick and Finnie [14] have also shown, by finite element stress analyses, that the near-
fusion-line effective crack-driving parameter, C*, increases as a result of the difference
between weld and base metal creep rates. Figure 1-12, reproduced with minor modifications
from Stevick and Finnie [14], shows the effect of creep rate inhomogeneity on the fusion line
crack growth driver, C*, for the simple center-cracked panel model. Note the intensification
on C* varies roughly from 2 to 4 for a weld-to-base metal creep rate ratio (R) of 5 to 10.
Comparison of the crack growth databases for weld metal (Figure 1-9) and fusion line
(Figure 1-10) show that the weld metal behavior and fusion line crack growth behavior are
similar in the laboratory tests. In addition, the median fusion line curve predicts a somewhat
longer crack growth lifetime than does the median weld metal curve for a given seam-welded
pipe in typical high-energy service. It is important to note that the data do not show any
evidence that fusion line crack growth behavior is inferior to that of weld metal when
compared on the basis of the da/dt-Ct (or C*) relation. What may occur, however, as
discussed above, is a local intensification of Ct or C* for a fusion line crack due to the
creep rate inhomogeneity in the weldment. Estimation of this intensification, dependent
upon weld geometry, was indirectly addressed by empirical benchmarking of the laboratory
test crack growth ratebased prediction against field experience (see Section 2).
Fracture Toughness and Leak-Before-Break
In the case of seam-welded piping, the probability of rupture (break) is essentially controlled by
the probability of exceeding the critical crack length (along pipe axis) before the internal
pressure release occurs from the crack propagating through-wall. Critical crack length can be
estimated using a material fracture toughness (KIc or JIc) criterion or a Tearing Modulus (T)
criterion. (A lower-bound length is provided for typical HRH pipe to assist the user in pipe
repair/replacement decision.) Although a critical crack length criterion can at least be
approximated using these material fracture properties, the prediction of whether a crack will
achieve critical length before breaking through-wall is considerably more difficult. A key aspect
related to being able to apply material fracture properties to a leak-before-break evaluation of
seam-welded piping is the predictability of the relative subcritical (creep) crack growth rate in
two directions; through-wall, and along the seam (pipe axis). Even where toughness or tearing
modulus is high (large critical crack length), a break can occur if crack growth through the wall
is considerably slower than along the seam, resulting in very long cracks prior to final failure.
Alternatively, such long cracks can be created by link-up of several shorter cracks in proximity
along the seam. Observational evidence indicates that either or both mechanisms for creation of
long cracks can be operative. The discontinuous nature of microcrack formation in the through-
wall direction (see Figure 1-3) suggests a possible slower through-wall damage progression rate
than the rate of crack growth along the seam (i.e., very long cracks with microcrack depth
dimension can be created before final through-wall link-up to cause failure). Also, the study on
S2 [2] has shown the possibility of several individual cracks linking up along the seam. In either
1-41
event, the issue reduces to the predictability of the crack aspect ratio. Although in-service
weldment inspections can provide information on current crack aspect ratio (length-to-depth
ratio), and a critical crack length (for rupture) can be estimated, the question of whether the
critical length can be reached before through-wall fracture and pressure relief cannot be reliably
answered. An illustration of the issue is the examples of failure cases S1 and S2 (see Table 1-2)
from the same HRH piping system. In these cases, the, damage mechanisms and failure modes
appear identical, but S1 ruptured (final crack length of 8 ft or 2 m), and S2 leaked (final crack
length of 8 inches or 20 mm). These Guidelines therefore do not provide a method for predicting
leak-before-break, and simply address the issue of predicting the rate of crack growth in the
through-wall direction.
Fracture toughness has been directly measured, as well as estimated from the results of (Charpy)
impact tests. Marschall et al. [4] have summarized the upper-shelf (Charpy) impact energy data
measured from tests on ex-service seam weldments. The data indicate that the upper-shelf
impact energy can be as low as 50 ft-lb (68 J) at the service temperature, which translates to
roughly KIc = 8090 ksi in. (8899 MPa m ) for the widely used Novak-Barsom-Rolfe
correlation between upper-shelf energy and KIc. Direct measurements of JIc have also been
reported [4], ranging from 170 to 650 in-lb/in2 (30 to 114 kJ/m2) for fusion line material, and
down to 400 in-lb/in2 (70 kJ/m2) for weld metal. Marschall et al. [4] have recommended use of a
200 in-lb/in2 (35 kJ/m2) value for evaluation of seam weldments, until more data are made
available. The elastically approximated KIc value for this level of JIc is roughly 75 ksi in. (82
MPa m ). Note that the lowest value of JIc reported for weldments (at typical service
temperatures) of 170 in-lb/in2 (30 kJ/m2) translates to an approximate KIc = 60 ksi in. (66
MPa m ). Additionally, Wells and Viswanathan [9] have reported that the Tearing Modulus, T,
associated with the particular lowest reported JIc value is 95. For a lower-bound JIc (= 170 in-
lb/in2 or 30 kJ/m2) and T (= 95), the HRH pipe cases of Table 1-1a show a range of critical crack
length for a through-thickness crack of between approximately 9.5 and 28 inches (240 and 710
mm) derived from SLIC2 [30].
1-42
Figure 1-12
Intensification of fusion line creep crack growth driving force parameter, C*, due to weld-
to-base metal creep rate ratio (R); reproduced from Stevick and Finnie [14]. The y-axis
representation has been simplified, where CFE* is the finite element stress analysis-based
estimation of C*, and stress analysis-based estimation of C*, and C*Hd-Bk is the
Handbook solution for a center-cracked panel.
1-43
Field Inspection Experience
The major objective of field (in-service) inspection programs for longitudinally seam-welded
steam pipes is to identify and characterize flaws, cracks, and creep damage in the weldment
which may affect the remaining life of the structure. Although supplementary nondestructive
evaluation (NDE) methods may be used; such as acoustic emissions, magnetic particle testing,
radiography, or replication; the principle method recommended for this inspection task is
ultrasonic examination, also referred to as ultrasonic testing (UT). Each of these methods is
discussed further in Section 5. Field and laboratory experience has shown that the ultrasonic
examination of seam welds requires that examinations be conducted using several beam angles
and at an increased sensitivity level. These requirements are more stringent than what is
normally required of traditional ultrasonic examination for fossil piping applications.
Appendices B, C, and D to this report include sample procedures for conducting ultrasonic
examinations of seam-welded steam piping.
Once a flaw has been detected, ultrasonic techniques should also be used to estimate the flaw
size. Flaws normally associated with seam-welded pipe have two major dimensions that need to
be estimated, i.e., flaw length and flaw height (depth or dimension in the through-wall direction).
Flaw length measurements are relatively simple and can be estimated quite accurately using the
same technique that was used to detect the flaw. Flaw height measurements, more complex, are
based on detecting ultrasonic signals returned from the extremities of the flaw. These flaw-
extremity signals are generated via the diffraction phenomenon of sound wave interactions with
the tip(s) of the flaw.
Appendix E provides a detailed flaw sizing procedure using conventional ultrasonic examination.
The steps included in the procedure require the use of complementing tip diffraction techniques
to assist in positively identifying the flaw tip signal from other signals caused by weld
geometries, grain structures, etc. It is important to note that the flaw sizing procedure in
Appendix E results in a conservative estimate of flaw size primarily due to the effects of beam
spread.
1-44
Effect of Ultrasonic Examination Procedure
Up until 1993, most of the ultrasonic examinations have been performed using procedures
containing the requirements of Section V of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code rather
than requirements from the original EPRI Guidelines (CS-4774). The effect of using the
requirements of Section V for seam weld inspections, rather than the EPRI Guidelines, is
essentially a less sensitive examination and greater likelihood of gross errors in flaw sizing. The
detection threshold for inspections conducted in accordance with ASME Code Section V is not
known for this damage mechanism. However, it is known that several buried flaws of greater
than 50% through-wall depth have been missed. This is only one of several major shortfalls of
the ASME V requirements for this application. In addition to inadequate sensitivity, the ASME
requirements do not mandate use of multiple beam angles, the recording criteria are not
appropriate for seam weldment-type indications, coverage is not ensured for detection of buried
flaws, and the flaw sizing methods recommended have been shown to be inaccurate. A rigorous
comparison of the EPRI and ASME Section V examination requirements is contained in Table
1-7.
Because of the potential impact related to the differences in inspection requirements for seam
welds, utilities may wish to evaluate their procedures and their vendors procedures for
compliance with the more stringent Guidelines. Appendix F contains a sample specification for
utilities planning to request vendor bids for seam weld ultrasonic inspection services. The
technical specification portion of Appendix F includes specific requirements for the conventional
ultrasonic examination procedure and is intended to assist the utilities in their evaluation process.
If this specification is used, as a minimum, and the quality control of the inspection is monitored,
a utility can have relatively high assurance that the inspection will not miss cracks and/or
microcrack damage zones down to 0.050 inch (1.3 mm) in through-wall extent. The technical
basis for making this detection capability assessment is documented in Section 2 of this report.
1-45
Table 1-8
Comparison of EPRI and ASME Section V Ultrasonic Examination Requirements for
Ferritic Pipe Welds
Inspection EPRI ASME Section V Advantage of EPRI Procedure

Parameter
Calibration 1/32" (0.8 mm) Notches 10% Notches Provides a consistent means of
Reflectors 1/16" (1.6 mm) 3/32" (2.4 mm) - ensuring maximum sensitivity for
Side-drilled holes 1/8" (3.2 mm) all flaw types
Side-drilled holes
Beam Angles 0, 45, & 60 or 70 for 45 Provides maximum assurance that

vertically oriented flaws (other angles optional) all flaw types may be detected and
characterized
Scanning Reference + 14 dB Reference + 6 dB Better ensures the detection of low

Sensitivity amplitude flaw-like indications
Recording Record and evaluate all Any imperfection Ensures that low amplitude
Criteria indications that exceed causing an indication in reflectors are recorded and
20% of reference level excess of 20% DAC evaluated
for embedded reflectors, shall be investigated
and 50% of reference
level for all other
reflectors
Flaw Sizing Reduced to noise level 50% end points Provides maximum assurance of
(Length) at end points flaw length estimates; this is
important due to the inconsistent
reflectivity properties of some flaw
types
Flaw Sizing High-angle L-wave flaw- Amplitude drop Provides maximum assurance that
(Depth) tip diffraction flaw extremities are evaluated
rather than a simple measurement
of the ultrasonic beam width
1-46
Results of Industry Surveys
The first industry survey regarding the results of field inspections of seam-welded piping was
conducted during 1986 and is documented in the 1987 edition of the Guidelines [1]. The survey
reported that more than 60 operating units with approximately 30,000 feet (9,000 m) of seam-
welded piping were examined from August 1985 through June 1986. The survey further
indicated that the scope and extent of in-service examination programs for seam-welded piping
were highly diverse and dependent on the particular approach selected by the utility. Many
utilities elected to perform examinations of 100% of the seam-welded HRH piping at high
sensitivity levels in conjunction with ongoing life extension and life assessment programs.
Others elected to perform limited examinations or examinations only in high personnel traffic
areas with the intent of completing the remainder at a later date. A total of 61 seam weld flaws
were reported. Four flaws with through-wall dimensions greater than 50% of the wall thickness
were reported. These flaws were cracks showing extensive in-service growth by creep located
near the weld fusion line. Of the five smaller flaws that were reported on the survey, samples
confirmed that three were located in the weld metal away from the fusion line and showed no
evidence of in-service growth. The fourth lay near the fusion line and was a creep crack. The
fifth flaw was permitted to remain in service with plans to monitor it. There was also one case
reported where a 0.05-inch (1.3-mm) slag through-wall inclusion showed evidence of in-service
growth by creep cavitation. Table 1-8 provides a complete summary of the survey results.
As additional seam weld failures and near failures continued to occur, a new industry survey was
developed and conducted in 1993. The 1993 survey requested information on operating and
design conditions, plant service dates, seam weld failures and the method of detection, specific
inspection information, number and size of flaws identified, available data from boat or plug
samples including data from comparisons with ultrasonic examination results, replication results,
and any other flaws or conditions deemed noteworthy. A key difference from the 1987 survey
was that this survey included requests for key inspection information that was used for
determining if seam weld inspections were actually being conducted in accordance with the
guidelines of EPRI Report CS-4774 as identified in Table 1-7. To make this determination, the
information requested on the survey included the type and size of the reference calibration
reflectors, beam angles used for detection and sizing, recording and evaluation levels, flaw sizing
techniques, and the evaluation approach (e.g., 100% inspection versus sampling).
1-47
Table 1-9
1987 Inspection Survey Results
Plant Year / Dia. Wall Seam Press Temp Inspectio Length Total Long Girth Att. Cree Insp.
Material (in) Thicknes Weld . (F) n Inspected Length Seam Weld Weld p Cost
s (psi) Techniqu (ft) (ft) Flaws Flaws Flaws ($)
e
(in)
A 1959/1-1/4 24 1.2 Y 650 1005 1,4,5 460 460 0 0 0 No $231,30

Cr 0
B 1964/1-1/4 16 0.438 340 1000 1,2,5 38 550 13 0 0 No

Cr
24 0.625
C 1962/1-1/4 18 0.844 Y 465 1010 1,2,4,5 150 350 2 0 0 No

Cr
D 1962/1-1/4 18 0.717 Y 500 1000 1,2,4,5 40 350 0 2 0 No

Cr
22 0.795 Y
E 1-1/4 Cr 18 0.938 Y 500 1000 1,2,4 500 500 0 0 0 No
24 1.218
F 1-1/4 Cr 16 0.844 Y 500 1000 1,2,4 460 460 0 0 0 No
20 1.031
G 1-1/4 Cr 26 1.312 Y 500 1000 1,2,4 460 460 0 0 0 No
16 0.844 N 0
H 1-1/4 Cr 18 0.938 Y 500 1000 1,2,4 460 460 0 0 0 Yes $133,00

0
24 1.218 Y 0
I 1962/1-1/4 16 0.844 N 600 1000 1,2,4 100 500 0 0 0 No

Cr
J 1955/2-1/4 26 1.488 Y 540 1000 1,2,5 125 500 1 0 0 No

Cr
20 1.281 Y 0 1
K 1959/1-1/4 24 1.188 Y 500 1000 1,2,4 70 450 1 0 0 No

Cr
L 1970/1-1/4 30 1.312 Y 600 1000 1,2,4 900 900 5 0 0 Yes,

Cr ID
M 1971/1-1/4 30 1.312 Y 600 1000 1,2,4 900 900 5 0 0 Yes,

Cr ID
N 1974/2-1/4 30 1.402 Y 670 980 1,2,4,5 900 900 0 2 2 No $500,00

Cr 0
1-48
O 1974/1-1/4 30 1.402 Y 670 980 1,2,4,5 900 900 0 0 1 No

Cr
P 1961/1-1/4 18 0.714 Y 560 1000 1,2,4,5 280 280 0 0 0 No $250,00

Cr 0
Q 1962/1-1/4 14 0.78 Y 500 1000 1,2,4,5 300 503 0 4 0 Yes $130,00

Cr 0
20 0.875
28 1.125
R 1954/1-1/4 14 0.594 Y 430 1005 1,2,4 40 40 0 0 0 No

Cr
S 1955/1-1/4 24 1.25 Y 416 1000 1,2,4,5 130 260 2 0 0 No

Cr
T 1969/2-1/4 30 0.965 Y 370 1055 1,2,4 335 670 0 0 2 Yes $550,00

Cr 0
U 1960/1-1/4 18 0.811 Y 484 1000 3,5 1140 1140 12 2 0 No

Cr
V 1961/1-1/4 18 0.811 Y 484 1000 3,5 1140 1140 10 3 0 No

Cr
W 1965/1-1/4 16 0.85 Y 475 1000 1,2,4,5 450 450 2 2 0 No

Cr
X 1976/2-1/4 33 1.6 Y 579 1000 1,2,4 440 440 0 0 1 No

Cr
Y 1-1/4 Cr 24 1.001 Y 475 1000 1,2,4 150 150 1 0 0 No
Z 1-1/4 Cr 36 2.08 Y 600 955 1,2,4 12 12 0 2 2 No
A2 1957/2-1/4 19 0.8 Y 475 1050 1,2,4 350 350 3 0 0 No

Cr
B2 1967/2-1/4 22 0.766 Y $375,00

Cr 0
24 0.849 Y 530 950 1,2,4 550 550 1 0 2 No
22 1.185 Y 1,2,4 490 490 0 0 0 No
C2 1968/1-1/4 20 0.94 Y 1,2,4 406 406 0 0 0 No $550,00

Cr 0
D2 1971/1-1/4 20 0.94 Y 1,2,4 375 375 1 1 0 No

Cr
E2 1-1/4 Cr 1,2,4 400 400 0 0 0 No
F2 1967/1-1/4 20 1.03
Cr
28 1.25 Y 1000 1,2,4 432 432 0 0 2 No
G2 2-1/4 Cr 18 0.92 Y 498 1005 1,2,4 390 390 1 1 0 Yes,

OD
1-49
H2 1976/1-1/4 28 1.291 Y 600 1000 1, 100 380 0 0 0 No

Cr
I2 1955/2-1/4 20 1.28 Y 540 1000 1,2 125 450 1 0 0 No

Cr
TOTAL 14,498 17,948 61 19 13
NOTES:
1 = Ultrasonic Examination
2 = Magnetic Particle Examination
3 = Radiographic Examination
4 = Replication
5 = Metallurgical Samples
1-50
Survey responses were received from 29 utilities representing 80 plants with 162 operating units.
During the initial review, 33% of the respondents indicated that they had not followed the EPRI
Guidelines when they performed examinations of their HRH piping seam welds, while 50%
stated that they did follow the Guidelines. The remaining 17% reported that they followed the
Guidelines to some degree, but not completely. However, when the key inspection information
was reviewed, it was discovered that only 2% of the respondents actually followed the
Guidelines completely and 41% had followed the Guidelines for the most part. Most of the
respondents included in this 41% category reported having used the correct calibration and
recording techniques, but used a different approach to flaw sizing than that recommended in
Appendix E.
Based on a review of the responses for respondents that had not followed the Guidelines
completely, it was determined that 92% of these had not used the correct type or size of
calibration reflector, 6% had used a recording level higher than recommended by the Guidelines,
and 2% had only used one beam angle for the reported examination. These specific deviations
from the Guidelines are considered significant because either one of them could result in the
examination having missed indications associated with creep damage including cracks and
microcracks. The other least followed recommendation in the Guidelines is the need to depth-
size flaws. This was concluded from the 1993 survey data which showed that of the 41% that
had followed the Guidelines for the most part, the most common deviation from the Guidelines
was the approach to flaw sizing.
The use of tip diffraction flaw sizing techniques is the NDE recommendation requiring the
greatest amount of technical expertise by the ultrasonic examiner. The NDE Center experience
with similar techniques for nuclear applications indicates that some additional training for
inspection personnel is normally required to develop a reasonable level of proficiency and
confidence using these methods. This assistance is widely available today because of the large
number of ultrasonic examiners that have completed the EPRI Boiling Water Reactor Owners
Group (BWROG) intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) flaw sizing training course.
This course has been given periodically at the NDE Center for ultrasonic examination personnel
during the past 15 years. Each utility should consider involving someone in the seam weld
inspection process that is familiar with these sizing techniques.
Various responses were received from the utilities concerning additional examination methods
used on HRH seam welds. In 1993, 90% of the utilities reported performing magnetic particle
examination and replication in conjunction with the ultrasonic examination; 46% performed
radiography; 7% performed visual examinations, and 3% performed liquid penetrant
examinations. A few other methods, including acoustic emission, chemical analysis, and
diameter measurements, were reported by one or two plants. Of those performing replication,
only 17.6% reported any evidence of creep damage. Damage, other than creep, was reported by
1.5% of the respondents.
The responding utilities reported that approximately 47,000 feet (14,000 m) of seam welds exist
in their plants. Between the 1987 and 1993 surveys, these utilities had inspected about 30,000
feet (9,000 m) of weld. The results of these inspections showed that 37 flaws greater than 0.2
inch (5 mm) in depth have been identified. Additionally, 23 flaws with depths between 0.1 and
0.2 inch (2 and 5 mm) had been found with lengths over 2 feet (0.6 m). Hundreds of short flaws
between 0.1 and 0.2 inch (2 and 5 mm) in depth had also been detected. The survey indicated
1-51
that 62 boat or plug samples had been taken from the represented seam-welded piping systems.
Ninety-two percent of these utilities took samples to verify flaws detected by NDE. The other
8% took samples in order to determine the remaining life of the unit. From the boat and plug
samples taken, typical flaws found in or adjacent to welds were identified. These flaw types
include weld slag, porosity, weld undercut, lack of fusion, inclusions, laminations, cracks, and
iron deposits on weld cusps. A comparison of ultrasonic examination results to the actual flaw
type and size as determined through metallurgical analyses was provided for 11 of these flaws
and is shown in Table 1-9. The results indicate that the performance of ultrasonic techniques can
influence the decision to remove a sample or simply monitor a suspected flaw condition. Table
1-10 summarizes the results from the 1993 survey.
Table 1-10
Comparison of Ultrasonic Examination Results with Actual Flaws Found as Reported by
11 Utilities
Flaw Type Actual Size (inch/mm) Ultrasonic Examination Size

(inch/mm)
Slag 0.020/0.51 0.450/11.4
Inclusions 0.006/0.15 0.500/12.7
Laminations 0.250/6.4 (Edges of Open) 0.250/6.4
Laminations Not Available 0.450/11.4
Crack 0.300/7.6 0.250/6.4
Crack 0.100/2.5 0.250/6.4
Slag w/Crack 0.300/7.6 0.350/8.9
Slag 0.020/0.51 0.240/6.1
Crack 0.375/9.5 0.500/12.7
Crack 60% through-wall Within 10% of UT reading
Crack 90% through-wall Within 10% of UT reading
1-52
Table 1-11
1993 Inspection Survey Results
Plant Year / Material Diameter (inch) Wall Thickness (inch) Inspect. Pressure Temp Inspection Length Total Length Long Seam Girth Att. Weld Creep
Proc. (psi) (F) Technique Inspect. (ft) Flaws Weld Flaws
(ft) Flaws
A 1964, 2-1/4 Cr 16.0 0.650 min b 570 1000 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 53 53 10 2 None
B 1971, 2-1/4 Cr 12.75 0.515 min b 600 1005 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 118 118 13 8 None
C 1968, 2-1/4 Cr 14 OD to 10 OD 2.3125 a 1875 1005 1, 2 5 5 0 1 1 None
D 1966, 2-1/4 Cr 14 OD 2.500 b 1875 1005 1, 2, 4 5 20 0 None 0 Creep-voids /

Isolated
Microvoids
E 1962, 1-1/4 Cr 18 OD 0.840 a, b 430 630 1, 2, 3, 4 100% Unknown 0 1 0 Creep voids
F 1964, 1-1/4 Cr 18 OD 0.840 a, b 430 630 1, 2, 3, 4 100% Unknown 0 0 3 Creep voids
G 1967, 1-1/4 Cr 22 OD 0.766 a, b 406 1000 1, 2, 3, 4 100% Unknown 0 0 3 Creep voids
H 1953, 2-1/4 Cr 18 OD 0.937 a, b 383 1010 1, 2, 3, 4 100% Unknown 0 0 0 Creep voids
I 1955, 1-1/4 Cr 20 OD 0.812 a, b 395 1010 1, 2, 3, 4 300 300 0 1 0 Creep voids
J 1970, 2-1/4 Cr 27 OD 1.275 a, b 615 1005 1, 2, 3, 4 330 330 1 0 0 Creep voids
K 1971, 2-1/4 Cr 27 OD 1.275 a, b 615 1005 1, 2, 3, 4 330 330 0 0 0 Creep voids
L 1972, 2-1/4 Cr 24 OD 1.1875 a, b 638 1020 1, 2, 3, 4 Elbows Elbows 0 0 8 None
M 1959, 2-1/4 Cr 28 / 20 0.875 / 0.687 a 261 1055 1, 2, 4 210 500 0 0 0 None
N 1960, 2-1/4 Cr 28 / 20 / 18 1.0 / 0.812 / 0.75 a 335 1050 1, 2, 4 135 800 0 0 0 None
O 1958, 1-1/4 Cr 20 1.1 a 570 1015 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 60 430 0 0 0 None
P 1953, 2-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1.25 / 0.938 a 450 1000 1, 2, 4 40 450 0 0 0 None
Q 1953, 2-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1.25 / 0.938 a 450 1000 1, 2, 4 40 450 0 0 0 None
R 1954, 2-1/4 Cr 22 / 18 1.0 / 0.937 a 450 1000 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 280 540 1 0 0 None
S 1955, 2-1/4 Cr 20 / 10 0.812 / 0.500 a 450 1015 1, 2, 3, 4 110 370 0 0 None
T 1960, 2-1/4 Cr 20 1.125 a 580 1100 1, 2, 5 15 400 0
1-53
(ft) Flaws
U 1961, 2-1/4 Cr 20 1.125 a 500 1100 1, 2 100 400 0 None
V 1953, 2-1/4 Cr 18 1.250 a 800 1100 1, 2 20 250 0
W 1953, 2-1/4 Cr 18 1.250 a 800 1100 1, 2, 4, 5 60 250 0
X 1958, 2-1/4 Cr 26 1.125 c 800 1050 1, 2, 4, 5 24 613 1 0 1 None
Y 1961, 1-1/4 Cr 30 / 24 1.78 / 1.425 c 800 1025 1, 2, 4 17 613 0 0 None
Z 1959, 1-1/4 Cr 29.25 1.66 c 700 1015 1, 2, 4 10 -- 0 0 None
A2 1959, 1-1/4 Cr 30 / 24 1.65 / 1.32 c 725 1005 1, 2, 4 16 479 None
B2 1965, 1-1/4 Cr 35 / 28.75 / 20 1.99 / 1.63 / 1.14 c 700 1015 1, 2, 4 41 813 0 0 None
C2 1966, 1-1/4 Cr 35 / 28.75 / 20 1.99 / 1.63 / 1.14 c 700 1015 1, 2, 4 41 813 0 0 None
D2 1967, 2-1/4 Cr 37.5 / 30.75 / 1.71 / 1.40 / 1.30 c 700 1015 1, 2, 4 17 585 0 0 None
28.55
E2 1968, 2-1/4 Cr 37.5 / 30.75 / 1.71 / 1.40 / 1.30 c 700 1015 1, 2, 4, 5 93 585 7 0 0 None
28.55
F2 1972, 2-1/4 Cr 44.5 / 36 1.925 / 1.56 c 700 1005 1, 2, 4 23 647 0 0 0 None
G2 1976, 2-1/4 Cr 44.5 / 36 1.925 / 1.56 c 700 1005 1, 2, 4 22 647 0 0 0 None
H2 1955, 2-1/4 Cr 26 1.254 c 600 1050 1, 2, 4, 5 212 383 8 0 2 None
I2 1962, 1-1/4 Cr 30 / 24 1.55 / 1.24 c 680 1005 1, 2, 4 6 587 0 0 0 None
J2 1958, 1-1/4 Cr 30 1.224 c 527 1005 1, 2, 4, 5 77 484 13 8 6 Creep voids,

Microcracks,
Macrocracks
K2 1962, 1-1/4 Cr 30 1.535 c 625 1015 1, 2, 4 6 584 0 0 0 None
L2 1955, 1-1/4 Cr 24.0 0.902 c 500 1000 1, 2, 4 15 438 0 0 0 None
M2 1955, 1-1/4 Cr 24.0 0.902 c 500 1000 1, 2, 4 10 438 0 0 1 None
N2 1963, 1-1/4 Cr 34.8 / 24.8 1.71 / 1.22 c 600 1015 1, 2, 4 10 -- 0 None
O2 1969, 2-1/4 Cr 29 OD 1.250 c 600 1005 1, 2, 3, 4 15 220 4 Creep voids
1-54
(ft) Flaws
P2 1985, 2-1/4 Cr 33.5 / 23.75 1.852 / 1.385 a 2400 1000 1, 2, 4 630 530 0 1 0 None
Q2 1968, 2-1/4 Cr 20 sch 60 a 470 1015 1, 2, 4, 7 100 200 0 0 1 None
R2 1980, 2-1/4 Cr 33 1.750 a 700 1005 1, 3, 4, 5 51 425 48 5 Creep voids
S2 1977, 2-1/4 Cr 33 1.750 a 700 1005 1, 2, 3, 4 425 425 87 1 Creep voids
T2 1975, 2-1/4 Cr 33 1.750 a 700 1005 1, 2, 3, 4 425 425 48 2 Creep voids
U2 1974, 2-1/4 Cr 30 1.53 b 772 1002 1, 2, 4 810 810 0 Some Creep voids,
Microcracks,
Macrocracks
V2 1975, 2-1/4 Cr 30 1.53 b 772 1002 1, 2, 4 810 810 0 0 Some Creep voids,
Microcracks,
Macrocracks
W2 1976, 2-1/4 Cr 30 1.53 b 772 1002 1, 2, 4 810 810 0 0 Some Creep voids,
Microcracks,
Macrocracks
Y2 1957, 1-1/4 Cr 18 0.816 nominal c 500 1050 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 360 360 Several - Transverse Direction None
Z2 1953, 1 Cr 20 / 16 1 / 1.031 a 470 950 780 0
A3 1954, 1 Cr 20 / 16 1 / 1.031 a 470 950 780 0
B3 1959, 1-1/4 Cr b 650 1010 1, 2, 3, 4 0 0 None
C3 1961, 1-1/4 Cr 16 1.031 a 630 1010 1, 2, 3 0 0 None
D3 1967, 2-1/4 Cr 25.75 1.5 a 700 1005 1, 2 2 Elbows 0 0
E3 1968, 2-1/4 Cr 25.75 1.5 a 700 1005 1, 2, 4 2 Elbows 0 0 None
F3 1970, 2-1/4 Cr 30 1.449 a, b, c 736 1015 1, 3 160 1091 0 0
G3 1971, 2-1/4 Cr 30 1.449 a, c 736 1015 1, 2 60 1091 30 0 0
H3 1972, 2-1/4 Cr 30 1.429 a, c 736 1015 1, 3 30 1174 6 0 0
I3 1973, 2-1/4 Cr 30 1.429 a, c 736 1015 1, 4 17 1174 0 0 None
J3 1976, 2-1/4 Cr 32 Min 1.524 a, c 736 1015 1, 4 2 Elbows 1103 0 0 None
K3 1977, 2-1/4 Cr 32 1.524 b 736 1015 1 2 Elbows 1103 0 0
1-55
(ft) Flaws
L3 1972, 2-1/4 Cr 24 1.250 b, c 2050 1005 1, 2, 4, 7 145 145 0 0 0 Creep,

Micro-voids
M3 1957, 1-1/4 Cr 21 0.963 a 550 1000 1, 2, 4, 6 400 600 1 0 0 None
N3 1974, 2-1/4 Cr 36 / 30 2.26 / 1.7 a 900 1000 1, 2, 4, 6 1200 1200 9 0 1 None
O3 1975, 2-1/4 Cr 36 / 30 2.26 / 1.7 a 900 1000 1, 2, 4, 6 1200 1200 41 0 0 None
P3 1972, 2-1/4 Cr 20.25 3.05 a 2640 1000 1, 2, 4 20 20 0 0 0 None
Q3 1951, 1.0 Cr 20 and 10.75 0.612 and 0.710 a 370 950 1, 2, 4 100 167 0 1 0 None
R3 1951, 1.0 Cr 20 and 10.75 0.612 and 0.710 a 370 950 1, 2, 4 100 167 0 1 0 None
S3 1965, 2-1/4 Cr 27.125 and 21 1.23 and 0.91 a 600 1000 1, 2, 4 450 450 7 6 0 None
T3 1966, 2-1/4 Cr 27.125 and 21 1.23 and 0.906 a 600 1000 1, 2, 4 440 440 0 0 0 None
U3 1969, 2-1/4 Cr 34.2 and 25 0.947 and 0.704 a 390 1000 1, 2, 4 450 890 0 0 8 None
V3 1970, 2-1/4 Cr 34.2 and 25 0.947 and 0.704 a 390 1000 1, 2, 4 450 890 0 0 0 None
W3 1952, 1.0 Cr 20 and 14 0.75 and 0.5025 a 500 1000 1, 2, 4 100 200 0 0 0 None
X3 1952, 1.0 Cr 20 and 14 0.75 and 0.5025 a 500 1000 1, 2, 4 100 200 0 0 0 None
Y3 1973, 1-1/4 Cr 27 and 19.14 1.2 and 0.092 c 575 955 1, 2, 3 716 216 0 0 0
Z3 1978, 2-1/4 Cr 29.4 and 20.8 1.2 and 0.092 c 605 1005 1, 2, 4 200 277 0 0 0 Creep voids
A4 1-1/4 Cr 22.75 1.08 c 670 1005 1, 2, 3, 4 245 245 0 1 2 None
C4 1-1/4 Cr 21.06 and 0.69 and 0.42 c 610 955 1, 2, 3, 4 200 214 0 0 0 None
14.94
D4 2-1/4 Cr 26 and 20 1.255 and 0.905 b 700 1015 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 200 200 0 0 2 None
E4 2-1/4 Cr 30 and 24 1.691 and 1.273 b 825 1015 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 200 200 0 0 1 None
F4 2-1/4 Cr 20 OD 1.125 a 700 1000 1, 2, 4, 6 640 640 1 0 2 None
G4 2-1/4 Cr 18 0.938 a, c 415 1053 1, 3, 4, 5 128 3 6 None
H4 2-1/4 Cr 18 0.938 a, c 415 1053 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 128 3 None
1-56
(ft) Flaws
I4 2-1/4 Cr 18 0.938 a, c 415 1053 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 128 3 None
J4 2-1/4 Cr 18 0.938 a, c 415 1053 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 128 3 None
K4 1-1/4 Cr 25.25 / 22.25 1.1 / 1 a, c 590 1003 1, 3, 4, 5 499 3 None
L4 2-1/4 Cr 27.5 / 20 1.25 / 1 a, c 475 1063 1, 3, 4, 5 327 3 None
M4 2-1/4 Cr 27.5 / 20 1.25 / 1 a, c 475 1063 1, 3, 4, 5 327 3 None
N4 2-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1 / 0.75 a, c 415 1053 1, 3, 4, 5 300 3 None
O4 2-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1 / 0.75 a, c 415 1053 1, 3, 4, 5 300 3 None
P4 2-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1 / 0.75 a, c 415 1053 1, 3, 4, 5 300 3 None
Q4 2-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1 / 0.75 a, c 415 1053 1, 3, 4, 5 300 3 None
R4 1-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1.031 / 0.844 a, c 630 1003 1, 3, 4, 6 330 3 None
W4 1-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1.031 / 0.844 a, c 630 1003 1, 3, 4, 6 330 3 None
T4 1-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1.031 / 0.844 a, c 630 1003 1, 3, 4, 6 330 3 None
U4 1-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1.031 / 0.844 a, c 630 1003 1, 3, 4, 6 330 3 None
V4 2-1/4 Cr 20 / 16 1 / 0.75 a, c 416 1053 1, 3, 4, 6 278 3 None
W4 2-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1 / 0.75 a, c 416 1053 1, 3, 4, 6 278 3 None
X4 2-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1 / 0.75 a, c 416 1053 1, 3, 4, 6 278 3 None
Y4 2-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1 / 0.75 a, c 416 1053 1, 3, 4, 6 278 3 None
Z4 2-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 1 / 0.75 a, c 416 1053 1, 3, 4, 6 278 3 None
A5 1-1/4 Cr 27.34 1.25 a, c 625 1003 1, 3, 4, 6 698 3 None
B5 1-1/4 Cr 27.34 1.25 a, c 625 1003 1, 3, 4, 6 698 3 None
C5 2-1/4 Cr 28 1.188 a, c 725 1003 1, 2, 4, 5 70 3 None
D5 1-1/4 Cr 20 1.031 a, c 490 1003 1, 3, 4, 5 50 3 None
E5 1-1/4 Cr 20 1.031 a, c 490 1003 1, 3, 4, 5 50 3 None
1-57
(ft) Flaws
F5 1-1/4 Cr 20 1.031 a, c 490 1003 1, 3, 4, 5 50 3 None
G5 1-1/4 Cr 20 1.031 a, c 490 1003 1, 3, 4, 5 50 3 None
H5 1-1/4 Cr 20 1.031 a, c 490 1003 1, 3, 4, 5 50 3 None
I5 1-1/4 Cr 18 1 a, c 490 1003 1, 3, 4, 5 50 3 None
J5 1-1/4 Cr 24 / 18 0.875 / 0.75 a, c 490 1003 1, 3, 4, 5 472 3 None
K5 2-1/4 Cr 25.25 OD 1.228 a, b 725 1005 1, 2, 4 800 680 0 0 Creep voids
L5 2-1/4 Cr 22 1.125 a, b 747 1000 80 740 0
M5 2-1/4 Cr 25.75 1.138 a 800 1015 1, 2, 4, 5 80' 80 3 Creep voids
N5 2-1/4 Cr 28 1.531 a 800 1015 1, 2, 4 80 80 1 0 None
O5 1-1/4 Cr 24 0.900 a 500 983 1, 2 80 19 0
P5 1-1/4 Cr 28.6 475 990 1, 2, 4, 5 15 7 9 None
Q5 1-1/4 Cr 20 / 20 / 28 / 14 0.674 / 0.740 / 0.943 / b 500 1000 1, 2, 4 378 378 9 7 7

0.47
R5 2-1/4 Cr 24 1.143 a 504 1005 1, 2, 4, 5 230 230 0 0 7 Creep voids,

Macrocracks
S5 1% 12 OD 1.6 b 530 1005 1, 2, 4 100 100 0 0 0 None
T5 1-1/4 Cr 18 and 14 0.875 and 0.750 b 450 1005 1, 2, 4 100 100 0 0 0 None
U5 1-1/4 Cr 18 and 14 0.875 and 0.750 b 450 1005 1, 2 150 150 0 0 0
V5 1-1/4 Cr 20 and 18 0.760 and 0.618 b 650 1005 1, 2, 4, 5 150 150 3 0 0 None
W5 1-1/4 Cr 22 / 28 0.893 / 1.136 a, b 1900 1005 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 409 0
X5 1-1/4 Cr 22 / 28 0.893 / 1.136 a, b 1800 1005 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 462
Y5 1-1/4 Cr 22 / 28 0.893 / 1.136 a, b 2400 1005 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 409
Z5 1-1/4 Cr 22 / 28 0.893 / 1.136 a, b 2400 1005 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 624
A6 1-1/4 Cr 22 / 28 0.893 / 1.136 a, b 2400 1005 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 681
1-58
(ft) Flaws
B6 1-1/4 Cr 22 / 28 0.893 / 1.136 a, b 2400 1005 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 682
C6 1-1/4 Cr 22 / 28 0.893 / 1.136 a, b 2400 1005 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 889
D6 1-1/4 Cr 22 / 28 0.893 / 1.136 a, b 2400 1005 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 673
E6 2-1/4 Cr 28 and 18 1.39 and 0.89 b 700 1005 1, 2, 4 150 150 0 0 None
F6 2-1/4 Cr 33 and 25.5 1.604 and 1.253 a 700 1005 1, 2, 4 100 300 0 0 0 None
G6 2-1/4 Cr 32, 25, and 1.4036, 1.1212, and a, b 650 1005 461 461 8 0
17.625 0.83
H6 2-1/4 Cr 37.5, 28.75 1.813, 1.406 b 700 1005 1, 4 249 687 0 None
I6 2-1/4 Cr 37.5, 28.75 1.813, 1.406 b 700 1005 1, 4 253 677 0 None
J6 2-1/4 Cr 41.5 and 30.75 2.053 and 1.521 b 700 1005 1, 4 276 634 0 None
K6 1-1/4 Cr 16 0.843 and 0.781 b 650 1005 1, 4 170 170 0 None
L6 2-1/4 Cr 26 1.658 b 650 1055 1, 4 258 290 0 None
U6 1-1/4 Cr 18 and 14 0.750 b 600 1005 1, 4 84 301 0 Creep voids
V6 1-1/4 Cr 28.5 and 22.5 1.399 and 1.147 c 675 1005 1, 4, 6 275 465 0 None
W6 1-1/4 Cr 26 OD 0.987 a 650 1000 1, 2, 4, 7 174 174 None 0 Creep voids
X6 1-1/4 Cr 26 OD 0.987 a 650 1000 1, 2, 4, 7 70 181 None 0 1 Creep voids
Y6 1-1/4 Cr 26 OD 0.987 a 650 1000 1, 2, 4, 7 17 180 None 0 0 Creep voids
Z6 1-1/4 Cr 26 OD 0.987 a 650 1000 1, 2, 7 12 180 None 0
1 = Ultrasonic Examination 7 = Visual Examination

2 = Magnetic Particle Examination 8 = Acoustic Emission
3 = Radiographic Examination a = EPRI CS-4774
4 = Replication b = ASME Section V
5 = Metallurgical Samples c = Other Procedure
6 = Liquid Penetrant Examination
1-59
Three failures were reported on the survey forms that included a leak in a HRH elbow that had
not been previously inspected. Also, a leak in a HRH lateral that was fabricated from carbon
steel, showed creep damage and a leak in a HRH 90-degree bend that metallography later
revealed to be advanced creep damage along the weld fusion line (Plant S2 of Table 1-1a). Other
flaws and conditions were also reported. Approximately 2000 girth welds were inspected and 55
(2.8%) contained defects. Several hundred cracked attachment welds were reported, along with
numerous cracked main steam saddle welds and wye blocks. Utilities also reported two cracked
drain lines, numerous cracked gamma ray plugs, bulged pipe, cracks between gusset plates, a
cracked steam link to header weld, and creep at a tube to header weld.
As previously noted, the results of the survey indicate that the majority of ultrasonic
examinations on seam-welded piping systems have been performed in accordance with the
requirements of ASME Section V. The technical bases for the Guidelines, which establishes the
significance of performing seam weld inspections using more stringent requirements, is
explained in Section 2 of this report.
Based on the information provided in the 1993 survey, it can be concluded that the EPRI
Guidelines were successfully applied by approximately 50% of the utilities to detect seam
weldment defects, and some utilities detected large flaws early enough to avoid failures. The
best evidence to support application of the Guidelines is the observation that no failures have
occurred at a utility that has successfully implemented EPRIs NDE recommendations. The
survey showed that hundreds of flaws had been found by these utilities. In at least three of these
cases, creep damage was present when samples were removed and examined.
Since publication of the 1987 Guidelines, EPRIs NDE Center has provided ongoing technical
assistance to utilities implementing the Guidelines procedures. This support has included direct
on-site help with HRH pipe inspections, evaluations of utilities seam weld inspection programs,
and training courses for seam weld inspection personnel. Feedback from these efforts provides
strong support for the practical application of the Guidelines. In contrast to the possible
perception that performing inspections to the Guidelines would result in examiners reporting
hundreds of small reflectors, the utilities supported by the above activities have consistently
reported no substantial increase in the numbers of indications reported.
1-60
Summary of Observations
Based on the available data and the various NDE, metallographic, and destructive evaluations
that have been carried out on ex-service piping and related laboratory samples, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1. Key factors contributing to failure of seam-welded piping are listed below. Each of these
factors may not be significant in isolation, although a combination of several can be
detrimental to the in-service integrity of seam-welded piping.
Tangential stresses (nominal hoop, peaking and ovality, intrados of elbows, bends
showing peaking or subject to in-plane bending)
Temperature and temperature excursions
SA welding with acid flux compositions, generally characterized by high oxygen (700
1000 ppm) in the weld resulting in a high concentration of inclusions near the fusion line
Fabrication defects located at, or near, the fusion line
Large weld beads with a pronounced cusp and high ratio of maximum to minimum weld
width
Large difference between the creep rates of weld and base metal
Heat treatment influences the location of cracking. N&T and annealed weldments have
consistently cracked at the fusion line. Subcritically heat-treated weldments have shown
several crack paths including the fusion line, weld centerline, and the Type IV fine-grain
HAZ. Further, cracked or failed HRH piping showed cracking at the fusion line, whereas
the failed or cracked main steam pipe sections showed non-fusion-line cracking, mainly
at the fine-grain (HAZ) regions in the weld centerline or at the Type IV HAZ. The
combination of a U-groove geometry and subcritical PWHT was common to all of the
cases where non-fusion-line cracking was reported.
2. Most of the cracking originates subsurface, usually at the cusp position of double-V welds.
Pre-existing defects located at the fusion line are potentially serious, while defects in the
weld metal interior may be relatively innocuous. These metallographic observations imply
that surface replication is of limited use on seam welds, and emphasizes the need for sample
removal if ultrasonic examination shows indications near the fusion line extending over
significant length along the weld seam. The only context within which replication appears to
be useful is in identifying the presence of inclusions in cover passes and the presence or
absence of a distinct HAZ.
3. Mechanical property evaluations of ex-service seam-welded piping material have shown that
relative to the base metal, weldments are characterized by:
Higher creep rates
Lower stress rupture strength
Lower fracture toughness
1-61
Accelerated creep crack growth rates
The results of small smooth-bar cross-weld rupture tests may not be relied upon for damage
predictions. Creep crack growth tests indicate that, on average, fusion line behavior is not
significantly different from weld metal behavior when compared on the basis of the da/dt-Ct
(or C*) relation. However, evidence exists to suggest that fusion line cracks can experience
accelerated growth due to intensification of the crack growth driver, Ct, arising from the
creep rate inhomogeneity in the weldment.
4. NDE observations suggest that the ultrasonic examination procedures provided in the 1987
EPRI Guidelines (CS-4774) are sufficient to detect and size cracks that can potentially lead
to seam-welded pipe failure. In instances where unanticipated failures occurred, the
inspections preceding the failure did not follow the Guidelines procedure.
5. Observations indicate that damage accumulation commonly occurs heterogeneously by the

initiation of a crack or damage zone (zone of discontinuous creep microcracks) at the near-
cusp or either pipe surface location and time-dependent growth of the crack or damage zone
across the remainder of the section until final failure. The through-wall damage gradients
and crack morphology observations made on many of the HRH pipe cases studied are also
consistent with a time-dependent accumulation of detectable damage through the pipe wall.
The Guidelines evaluation procedures are therefore essentially developed on the basis of the
ability to inspect for this form of damage and to predict its growth across the pipe section.
1-62
2
TECHNICAL BASES FOR GUIDELINES
Ultrasonic Examination Capability
The advantages and limitations associated with using both conventional and advanced ultrasonic
examination as the primary volumetric method for seam welds have been assessed based on
extensive field and laboratory experience. This experience base includes the results of
experiments performed using a combination of flaws removed from service, fabricated samples
containing a variety of intentionally placed flaws, and removed sections from a failed reheat
piping system that subsequently were shown by metallurgical evaluations to contain various
stages of service-induced creep damage.
The capability of conventional ultrasonic evaluation to effectively detect, characterize, and size
flaws was documented based on the results of these experiments. Some of the experiments
discussed in this section were conducted following the early catastrophic seam weld failures. A
summary of the key results from these initial experiments has been included herein; however,
complete details of the experiments are published in Reference 1. Conventional ultrasonic
examination, using the approach recommended in this document, continues to be cost-effective
and technically adequate to address the fusion line cracking scenarios encountered to date in
HRH piping.
However, increasing awareness of other forms of cracking (such as weld centerline cracking and
Type IV cracking) as well as the potential for uniform fusion line cavitation in a uniform
through-wall stress field has driven the need increasingly toward incipient cavitation damage
detection [55]. As a result, ongoing development of advanced ultrasonic techniques, including
time-of-flight diffraction and linear phased array, has occurred and they now offer reliable flaw
detection and sizing results in a more timely and consistent manner. In December 2000, EPRI
issued 1000564, Guidelines for Advanced Ultrasonic Examination of Seam-Welded High Energy
Piping [54]. The report summarizes the results of investigations performed on laboratory and
field-removed samples. It includes examination procedures designed to identify creep damage at
various locations in the seam weld including that, which may occur in some elbows, bends, and
peaked pipes. A summary of these techniques, their application, and use of results for piping
evaluation are summarized in Section 5.
Results of 1987 Investigations
The initial experiments conducted to assess the capability of conventional ultrasonic examination
for seam-welded steam pipes included a fabricated set of seam-welded samples and flaws
removed from service. Each of the fabricated samples contained a discontinuity of a specified
size and shape selected to simulate a particular type of flaw such as entrapped slag, lack of
2-1
Technical Bases for Guidelines
fusion, centerline cracking, shrinkage cracking, or creep cracking. The samples were based on
the premise that a flaw of 0.1 inch (2 mm) depth (in the pipe radial direction), with orientations
ranging from 0 to 35 from the radial direction, must be detected with a high degree of
confidence. During these experiments, ultrasonic data were also acquired on two flaws in spools
that had been removed from service. The service related flaws are shown in Figure 2-1. Both
flaws are slag inclusions with creep crack propagation.
The results of the ultrasonic examinations conducted on these samples showed that the ultrasonic
sensitivity associated with 10% notches, as required by the ASME Code, Section V, was not
adequate to detect many of the known flaws embedded in or near the seam weld. A 1/32-inch
(0.8 mm) deep calibration notch was found to be adequate.
Additionally, it was necessary to use at least two examination angles aimed from two directions
in order to detect all of the known flaws. The investigators concluded that conventional
ultrasonic evaluation, when performed in accordance with more stringent examination
requirements, including the use of a 1/32-inch (0.8 mm) deep calibration notch and at least two
beam angles, could provide reliable detection of flaws 0.1 inch (2.5 mm) in height (through-wall
depth). Later experiments indicate a detection capability with this procedure down to a flaw
height of <0.050 inch (1.3 mm).
2-2
Figure 2-1
Slag inclusions with creep crack propagation.
2-3
The technical bases used to develop a recommended flaw sizing procedure for seam weld
inspections were derived from the extensive work that had already been performed in
support of the intergranular stress corrosion cracking problem of piping in boiling water
reactor nuclear plants. The results of this work demonstrated that amplitude-based sizing
techniques were unreliable because flaw response amplitude is easily affected by many
variables not related to flaw height (depth). The recommended technique for flaw sizing
was based on detecting ultrasonic signals returned from the extremities of the flaw and is
commonly referred to as crack tip diffraction. For an embedded flaw, the top and bottom
edges of the planar flaw produce such a signal, thereby clearly delineating the through-
wall extent of the flaw. These modern sizing techniques include several complementary
tip diffraction methods that can be used to accurately size a flaw. Figure 2-2 shows a
comparison of different techniques that were used to measure the known depth of several
notches. The figure shows the advantage of using complementary tip diffraction
techniques as well as the disadvantage of using amplitude-based techniques.
The accuracy of flaw depth measurements performed by trained and qualified operators using tip
diffraction techniques was assessed based on a large number of personnel and flaw samples.
Based on this database, flaw depth measurements made using tip diffraction techniques were
shown to consistently fall within approximately 0.05 inch (1 mm) of actual destructive
measurements.
Results of 1993 Investigations
In 1993, extensive ultrasonic and metallurgical evaluations were conducted on removed

segments of a failed reheat piping system. A significant outcome from the study was an
objective comparison between the ultrasonic-interpreted damage (inspection and interpretation
made by the EPRI NDE Center using the CS-4774 techniques) and the actual metallographically
observed damage, details of which may be found in Reference 2.
2-4
Figure 2-2
Measured notch depth versus known depth for several techniques.
2-5
The piping was nominally 20 inches (510 mm) in diameter and 0.740 inch (19 mm) minimum
wall, seam-welded and manufactured per ASTM A155 Class 1, Grade 11 (1-1/4 Cr 1/2 Mo).
The seam weld was made using a double-V joint design and a submerged arc weld process. The
weld had been deposited using two welding passes; one from the inside and one from the
outside. The V-intersection or cusp was located at an approximate midwall position. Segments
of the piping system included the failed 90-degree bend and other selected bends and straight
sections. In total, approximately 30 feet (9 m) of piping was made available for investigation.
The ultrasonic examination of these segments was performed using a commercial-grade

ultrasonic digital imaging system. For data acquisition, a track mounted inspection device was
employed. Coverage was provided using perpendicular scans performed from both sides of the
weld outside surface with both 45-degree and 60-degree shear wave ultrasonic beams. Standard,
single element transducers were used having a nominal frequency of 2.25 MHz with 3/8-inch
(9.5 mm) round elements.
Ultrasonic calibration was performed on a calibration block designed in accordance with Figure
B-3 of Appendix B. Preparation of examination surfaces was limited to the removal of visible
corrosion products only, except for the two pieces from the failed bend. These two samples
required additional surface preparation to remove a thick coating of outside surface scale.
After ultrasonic data were collected on each of the specimens, a review was made to identify
suspect regions requiring closer evaluation. From this initial review, 17 specific locations were
selected and designated as key locations. These locations would also be the sites for
comprehensive metallurgical investigations following the ultrasonic evaluations. The next step
was to precisely evaluate the ultrasonic data including efforts to detect, size, and characterize any
flaw conditions present at these locations.
Table 2-1 summarizes the pertinent ultrasonic-based interpretation of the 17 selected locations
and provides a comparison with the metallographic damage observations for these locations.
The detection capability of the ultrasonic technique used for these investigations indicates that
the technique can identify microcrack damage zones down to 0.030 inch (0.76 mm) in through-
wall extent. A complete summary of the metallurgical observations, including micrographs of
the cross-sections, is provided in Reference 2.
2-6
Table 2-1
Ultrasonic-Based Interpretation of Selected Locations and Comparison with
Metallographic Observations [2]
Section Flaw or Damage Zone Ultrasonic-Estimated Metallographically

Locationa Through-Wall Flaw Size Measured Through-Wall
(inch/mm) Flaw Size (inch/mm)b
16LSA1 No Flaws No Indications No Flaws
16LSA2 ID/CCW 0.050/1.3 0.019/0.48
16LSA2 ID/CW 0.030/0.76 0.029/0.74
16LSA3 ID/CCW 0.200/5.08 0.034/0.86
16LSA3 ID/CW 0.100/2.54 0.174/4.42
16LSB1 ID/CCW 0.265/6.73 0.328/8.33
16LSB1 ID/CW 0.719/18.3 0.651/16.5
16LSB2 ID/CCW 0.420/10.7 0.095/2.4
C/CCW Incl. w/ ID Size 0.217/5.51
16LSB2 ID/CW 0.293/7.44 0.494/12.5
16LSB3 ID/CCW 0.115/2.92 0.015/0.38
16LSB3 ID/CW 0.055/1.4 0.042/1.1
C/CW No Indication 0.082/2.1
16LSB4 ID/CCW 0.065/1.7 0.011/0.28
16LSB4 ID/CW 0.065/1.7 0.024/0.61
6LS1 ID/CW 0.326/8.28 0.346/8.79
6LS2 C/CCW 0.090/2.3 0.151/3.84
6LS2 C/CW 0.095/2.4 0.056/1.4
2LS1 ID/CCW 0.261/6.63 0.332/8.43
2LS2 No Flaws No Indications No Flaws
12LS1 ID/CCW 0.210/5.33 0.349/8.86
12LS2 C/CCW 0.200/5.08 0.063/1.6
ID/CCW Incl. w/ Cusp Size 0.068/1.7
2-7
12LS3 C/CCW No Indication 0.010/0.25
12LS3 C/CW 0.110/2.79 0.015/0.38
(a) ID: ID-connected; C: Cusp location; CW, CCW: Left and Right sides, respectively, of weld when
sighting in direction of flow, with weld at 12 oclock.
(b) All flaw sizes correspond to observed creep damage.
The results of ultrasonic flaw sizing performed at the various weld locations using crack tip
diffraction techniques are shown in Figure 2-3. The graph in the figure encompasses 28 recorded
points that include measurements taken on the flaws from Table 2-1. Where applicable, it
includes flaw measurements taken on both sides of the weld. The vertical axis represents the
crack depth as reported by ultrasonic tip diffraction. Perfect performance would lie along a 45-
degree line from the origin and have a correlation coefficient of 1. The crack sizing results
depicted in Figure 2-3 show a regression slope of 0.794 and a correlation coefficient of 0.906.
An RMS (root-mean-square) error of 0.077 inch (2.0 mm) indicates that accurate sizing can be
achieved when appropriate methods are employed.
Ultrasonic characterization of flaws is primarily based on obtaining reliable ultrasonic data for
each flaw, performing precise plotting techniques (either manual or computer assisted), and
carefully analyzing the reflectivity characteristics of the flaw using two beam angles from two
directions. Using this approach, ultrasonic analyses of the removed pipe samples successfully
identified all flawed areas, except one, as being crack-like. A lack of fusion type flaw was
suspected at location 2LS1. The subsequent metallurgical evaluations showed all flawed areas to
consist of creep cracks and creep microcrack zones in the weld metal immediately adjacent to the
fusion line [2]. No welding-related defects were identified.
The investigations showed that a conventional ultrasonic technique applied in accordance with
the requirements of Appendices B and E is capable of detecting cracks and/or microcrack
damage zones in seam-welded piping down to 0.030 inch (0.76 mm) in through-wall extent. The
investigations also showed that the ultrasonic technique cannot be considered capable of
detecting individual creep voids. However, microcrack damage zones appear to be very
detectable when using appropriate inspection techniques. With regard to crack sizing accuracy,
the RMS sizing error of 0.077 inch (2.0 mm) obtained on the damaged samples also indicates
that accurate crack sizing can be achieved when appropriate tip diffraction sizing techniques are
employed. This crack depth sizing inaccuracy, however, can result in potentially non-
conservative predictions in crack growth period and remaining life. Nevertheless, the
recommended pipe evaluation procedures, described later, are intended to be conservative in
many other different respects. Additionally, the impact of potential undersizing to the overall
evaluation procedure is less than would be expected on the basis of this overall RMS error for
the following reason. Figure 2-3 shows that, for crack depths below approximately 25% of the
pipe wall thickness, the ultrasonic procedure generally overestimated crack size (19 out of 21
data points show oversizing). This suggests that the procedure is expected to provide a
2-8
conservative prediction of remaining life in this crack size range. When crack sizes exceed 25%
of the wall thickness, the estimated remaining life by the evaluation procedure is likely to be too
small to permit prolonged continued operation (see example of remaining life sensitivity to crack
size in Figure G-2 of Appendix G). The conventional ultrasonic inspection techniques for flaw
detection and sizing are discussed in greater detail in Section 5 of this report.
Figure 2-3
Comparison of measured ultrasonic tip diffraction depth vs. metallographic depth for
cracked seam-welded HRH pipe samples.
2-9
It is important to note, at the outset, that these Guidelines have been developed with realistic
consideration of the inspectability based on the preceding summary. Although the
demonstrations of Reference 2 indicate detectability down to crack sizes of 0.030 inch (0.76
mm), the in-service detection reliability at this size level has not been quantified. Based on these
laboratory results and on the typical ultrasound wavelength for the application (0.055 inch or 1.4
mm), which represents a reliably detectable defect size, a threshold detection crack size (depth)
of 0.05 inch (1 mm) is concluded to be a reliable detection threshold for properly executed
conventional ultrasonic field inspections. This threshold detection level has been incorporated
into the Guidelines such that in the absence of significant indications, a default 0.05 inch-crack
(1 mm) is assumed for the remaining life evaluation. This threshold detection size, selected on
the basis of the cumulative laboratory and field experience, is expected to be realistically
conservative for in-service inspections performed in accordance with the Guidelines. Similarly,
the sizing procedure (Section 5 and Appendix E) is also intended to be conservative.
Weldment Performance Predictability
The predictability of seam weldment integrity is essentially controlled by the ability to predict
the initiation of damage (cracking) and the rate of damage progression (crack growth) under a
given set of operating conditions. Manageability of a particular piping system then involves
interrogation of the system condition by inspection, and combining the results of the
interrogation with the integrity prediction.
The factors influencing the in-service damage initiation and progression in piping seam
weldments have yet to be fully determined. Nevertheless, the relevant cumulative field
experience and laboratory test data provide a basis for developing quantitative approaches to
seam weldment life prediction, even if such approaches were considered empirical when they
were developed in 1993. Application of the body of laboratory creep rupture and creep crack
growth data generated on ex-service seam weldments (described in Section 1) requires that the
field experience be compared against the range of performance predictions made with the data
(benchmarking). Such a benchmarking exercise seeks to provide an empirical interpretation of
laboratory test data for a realistically conservative prediction of seam-welded piping
performance.
In every seam-welded pipe case through 1993, where major cracking or failure had occurred,
examinations of the pipe seam weldment cross-section have shown strong evidence that the in-
service damaging process involves localized initiation in the form of a crack, or several
microcracks in one location of the cross-section. This is followed by an apparent time-dependent
progression of the damage across the pipe wall and along the pipe axis [2]. The damaging
process may therefore be, at least phenomenologically, partitioned into a two-step process of
damage (microcracks) or crack initiation followed by damage progression or crack growth.
Details of the damage accumulation stages are discussed in a following subsection (Observations
Relating to Cracking Preceding Failure with the schematic Figure 2-5). This Guidelines
document emphasizes the use of a crack growthbased approach to predicting the performance
of seam-welded piping. Essentially, the problem is one of being able to reliably predict the
progression of damage or the growth of a crack from the defined inspection threshold size
(where the inspection shows no indications) or from the size of an inspection-detected crack or
damage zone.
2-10
At the outset, it should be noted that the single-crack growth model prescribed is a mechanistic
simplification, as in many instances the in-service damage propagates by the progressive growth
of a zone of microcracks (see Figures 1-2 and 1-3, for example, and the schematic in Figure 2-5).
Use of the single-crack simplification is currently necessary from the standpoint of available
models and data. In the single-crack model simplification, the crack damaged zone is taken to
represent a continuous single crack. Note that the ultrasonic inspection method detects and sizes
such a damaged zone, so that use of inspection results with the single-crack simplification is
relatively straightforward. The simplification is expectedly conservative because the
discontinuous microcracking process has been concluded to generally occur progressively
through the section in a time-dependent manner [2], requiring the successive initiation of
individual microcracks for growth of the microcrack-damaged zone. The process is likely to be a
slower damaging process than the growth of a single crack where crack-tip damage rates are
expectedly higher due to the size of the single crack. To ensure realistic predictions, the crack
growthbased predictions are empirically benchmarked against field experience.
It is again emphasized (as stated in Section 1), that the crack growth approach is premised on the
damaging process occurring by heterogeneous initiation (damage initiation at a single location),
followed by time-dependent growth of the initiated damage zone across the pipe wall. This form
of damage accumulation is representative of the failure experience through 1993 (see Section 1),
and the Guidelines are predicated on this experience. Where homogeneous damage initiation
occurs (simultaneous cavitation damage across an appreciable portion of the pipe wall), large
damage zones (undetectable by EPRIs inspection procedure) could rapidly lead to failure by
cavity link-up. Such a condition may not be reliably managed by the current Guidelines
inspection and evaluation procedures. Specifically, Wells has suggested [35] that the
heterogeneous damage initiation assumption may be violated in case of clamshell elbows (and
similar fittings) and pipe cross-sections with a roof or ovality, wherein the stress gradient could
be uniform over an appreciable portion of the pipe wall. The geometric, operating, and material
conditions under which a homogeneous damage condition occurs, however, cannot be
currently specified due to the lack of analytical predictions of the conditions under which stress
gradients across the pipe wall would be uniform. Further, the documented field cracking
experience examined in the development of the Guidelines did not provide evidence of the
homogeneous damage rapid cracking scenario to help identify and quantify the conditions that
would make it possible.
The benchmarking exercise is intended to provide the most pertinent and accurate interpretation
of laboratory test data for application to in-service seam-welded piping. In addition, the exercise
provides the basis for developing a realistically conservative generic approach to predicting in-
service damage progression rates where pipe weldment-specific test data are unavailable.
Mechanistic-based approaches may be developed as understanding of seam weldment behavior
improves.
Benchmarking Laboratory Stress Rupture Data Against Field Failures
The discussion centers around Figure 1-6 which shows the field failure experience through 1993
plotted on an ASTM Stress vs. Larson-Miller parameter graph, and on Figures 1-7 and 1-8,
which summarize the results of ex-service pipe seam weldment cross-weld creep rupture data
before (as-obtained) and after correcting each data point for the estimated effect of service
2-11
exposure. (The plots also show an estimate of in-service creep rupture behavior for an
unexposed weldment.) Review of the figures suggests that for a seam-welded pipe under an
operating stress approximated by the elastically calculated hoop stress due to pressure, the ex-
service laboratory cross-weld rupture data will usually predict creep rupture life well in excess of
the actually observed pipe service life. Table 2-2 summarizes the ASTM Minimum curvebased
prediction of rupture life, and the limited available weldment-specific laboratory testbased
prediction of rupture life against the actual service life for seam-welded pipe cases where
significant cracking or failures had been experienced (see Table 1-1a). Note that the laboratory
testbased predictions were made from the test data corrected for service exposure; (i.e., from
estimates of new weldment behavior, see Figures 1-7b and 1-8b for example). In all cases, the
service life corresponds to the service period preceding failure or major cracking.
Table 2-2 indicates that the actual service lives represent a fraction of the life as predicted from
the ASTM Minimum curves or as predicted from the actual ex-service weldment data (corrected
to represent unexposed weldment data). A review of the magnitude and range of these fractions
provide some insight into the question of how laboratory rupture test data, or how the ASTM
Minimum rupture curves, may be used to predict the performance or remaining life of an in-
service seam weldment. Except for the single case of Plant B (for which the failure has been
attributed to a pre-existing defect, and for which the crack growth predictions were also grossly
incompatible with the service observations possibly due to inaccurate estimates of initial defect
size), the service lives exceeded 0.10 or 10% of the life predicted from the ASTM Minimum
curves. Indeed, the HRH pipe cases where failures had occurred (S1, S2, M1, M2) consistently
showed ratios exceeding 0.20 or 20%. The main steam line cases, where failures occurred in the
Type IV HAZ (G1) or weld centerline region (MS2) showed corresponding ratios exceeding
10%. The limited failure experience suggests that the HRH seam-welded pipe failure event
appears unlikely when the ratio of service exposure to the total rupture lifetime predicted from
the ASTM Minimum curve properties (for a stress level equal to the mean-diameter hoop stress)
is <<0.20 (20%). The Type IV finegrain HAZ or weld centerline crackdriven failures noted in
the main steam line cases, however, appear to be possible at much lower ratios (0.10 or 10%).
The data of Table 2-2 also show that the elastically calculated hoop stress due to internal
pressure appears significantly lower than the stress level predicted to cause failure if the
conventional laboratory rupture testbased approach to life prediction is used (see the last two
columns of the table). Also note that the conventional laboratory test specimen rupture process
does not represent the localized crack initiation and growth process observed in seam-welded
pipes during service. These observations support the crack growthbased approach as the
method of choice for the quantitative evaluation of seam-welded piping. Further, the case of
cracking from pre-existing defects can also be appropriately predicted on the basis of crack
growth.
The following specific observations are made from the benchmarking of laboratory test-based
rupture life predictions against actual service life:
Laboratory rupture tests on cross-weld specimens from ex-service pipe seam weldments that
were significantly damaged or failed in service predict weldment service lives (for the
elastically calculated hoop stress) far in excess of the lives actually observed, although the
predictions are all reasonably well described by the ASTM Minimum rupture curves. The
2-12
observation indicates difficulty with interpretation of such rupture test results for seam
weldment remaining life.
All of the HRH pipe failure (rupture and leak) cases showed service lives in excess of 20% of
the total available life estimated by the ASTM Minimum rupture curve or by ex-service
weldment rupture tests. In contrast, one of the main steam pipe seam weldment failed cases
(MS2; failure occurred in the finegrain HAZ at the weld centerline) showed that service
lives can be even lower, approaching 10% of the total available life predicted by the ASTM
Minimum rupture curve. To what extent the contrast reflects the failure path (fusion line
versus fine-grain HAZ) and the possible difference in behavior between sections of differing
thickness (thick-wall main steam versus relatively thin-wall HRH piping) remains unknown.
2-13
Table 2-2
Creep RuptureBased Life Predictions Compared with Service Life
Plant Oper. Oper. Service t * t ** Mean- Rupture

Temp. Pressure Hours = = Ratiodiameter Stress for
F (C) sig (bars) t tR tR hoop Service Life
Ratio of of Service Hrs stress based on
Service to life ksi (MPa) ASTM
Hrs to life predicted Minimum
predicted from Curves
from ASTM weldment-
Minimum specific tests ksi (MPa)
S1 1000 488 (34 ) 120,000 0.25 NAa 6.35 8.3 (57.2)

(538) (43.8)
S2 1000 488 (34 ) 212,000 0.44 NA 6.35 8.0 (55.2)

(538) (43.8)
M1 1000 730 (51) 97,000 0.20 0.24 7.40 9.5 (65.5)

(538) (51.0)
M2 1000 597 (41) 88,000 0.21 0.20 6.52 8.4 (57.9)

(538) (45.0)
P1 1000 484 (33) NRb NA 5.06

(538) (34.9)
F 1000 600 (41) 101,000 0.15 NA 6.13 8.3 (57.2)

(538) (42.3)
J 1050 360 (25) 184,000 0.10 0.07 4.14 6.3 (43.4)

(566) (28.5)
G2 1050 390 (27) 184,000 0.16 0.08 4.57 6.3 (43.4)

(566) (31.5)
B 1000 720 (50) 80,000 0.02 NA 5.40 10.0 (69.0)

(538) (37.2)
N 1015 525 (36) NR NA --

(545)
K 1010 465 (32) NR NA --

(543)
C 566 515 (35.5) 150,000 0.14 NA 4.69 6.5 (44.8)

(1050) (32.3)
MS1 1000 2640 (182) 152,000 0.12 NA 6.36 9.0 (62.1)

(538) (43.9)
MS2 1000 2640 (182) 168,000 0.13 NA 6.36 8.8 (60.7)

(538) (43.9)
2-14
MS3 1000 2640 (182) 172,000 0.42 NA 6.50 5.9 (40.7)

(538) (44.8)
P2 1000 1800 (124) NR NA --

(538)
G1 1000 3600 (248) 156,000 0.24 NA 7.14 8.9 (61.4)

(538) (49.2)
a: NA: Not available. b: NR: Not reported

* Also known as Life Fraction, calculated using tR from ASTM Minimum curve
** Also known as Life Fraction, calculated using tR from weldment-specific rupture tests
2-15
Review of all the cases of Table 2-2, including the ones in which failure had not occurred but
significant cracking was observed, shows that in virtually all cases, the service life
represented at least 0.10 or 10% of the predicted life using the ASTM Minimum rupture life
curves; (i.e., the life-fraction ratio of 0.10 based on the ASTM Minimum rupture curve
appears to be a realistic threshold or minimum exposure triggering concern for the integrity
of seam-welded piping).
The empirical stress intensification derived from the rupture curves was found to generally
be in the range of 1.2 to 1.5, quantitatively consistent with the stress intensification predicted
analytically due to stress redistribution in a 30 double-V weld with a weld metaltobase
metal creep rate ratio of five [9]. Other factors relating to system load effects (on bends, S1
and S2, and elbows, F) and configuration of the weld (roof-angle, for example) may also
have contributed to accelerated damage and the intensification. The contributions of these
effects, particularly applicable to HRH pipe seam weldments, have not been estimated.
In addition to the benchmarking exercise described above, an attempt was made to examine
whether, and to what extent, the consumed cross-weld rupture life provides indication of
acceleration in creep crack growth rate. This could occur through in-service degradation
resulting in: (1) a lowered creep resistance and faster creep rate, thereby resulting in an increase
in the magnitude of the crack growth driver, Ct, for the same operating conditions, and/or (2) a
decrease in creep ductility, resulting in an elevated crack growth rate for the same crack growth
driver magnitude, per the ductility-dependent predictions made by Webster et al. [36].
The question was examined as to whether the rupture life fraction consumed can be used to
quantify creep resistance. Marschall et al. [4] have compared ex-service cross-weld seam
weldment minimum creep rate laboratory test data against the unexposed base metal creep rate
data reported in the ASTM Data Series, DS50 for P11 [16] and DS6S2 for P22 [17]. They
showed that the ex-service weldments gave a significantly different strain ratestress and
temperature relationship than did the unexposed base metal data. However, differences in
behavior between individual weldments and their relation to service exposure were not studied.
Table 2-3 summarizes the results of an analysis of the available minimum creep rate data for the
cases where the rupture data were also complete (see Table 2-2) and two other instances of
undamaged pipe weldments where data were available (VV in [4], S3 or E in [4]). The limited
ex-service seam-welded pipe cross-weld creep rate data of Table 2-3 do not show a correlation
between the rupture life fraction, t/tR, and the Norton Law constants (creep ratestress and
temperature dependency). Comparison of the creep rates predicted using the constants for a
range of operating conditions also did not show any quantitative trends in creep rate dependency
on rupture life fraction.
The possibility of using rupture life-fraction consumed as an index of the creep crack growth rate
was also examined. The accumulated laboratory crack growth test-based data on ex-service
seam-welded pipe weldments, shown in Figure 1-9 for weld metal and Figure 1-10 for fusion
line cracking, were examined and compared with the rupture life fraction, t/tR. Table 2-4
summarizes the results in a semi-quantitative manner. The da/dt-Ct behavior is described
relative to the mean behavior for the entire population of tested seam weldments. Deviations
from the mean are represented in terms of the standard deviation of the log-normal fit to the
population of data (see Section 1, Table 1-5).
2-16
The summary of Table 2-4 does not indicate any apparent trends in the da/dt-Ct relationship that
could be considered correlatable with the consumed rupture life fraction. Indeed, the cases with
the maximum estimated consumed rupture life fraction (M2 and M1) showed the most average
crack growth behavior. Conversely, Case J showed significantly inferior crack growth resistance
(faster crack growth rate for the same Ct), even though its estimated life fractions were lower
than those of M1 and M2. Further, cases VV and E with virtually unexposed (no creep)
weldments showed average weld metal crack growth behavior, with the fusion line behavior
slightly superior in case of VV. Overall, the results must be considered inconclusive.
2-17
Table 2-3
Effect of Service Exposure on Cross-Weld & = f(, T) Relationshipa
Plant t/tR # Data Points A n Q
ASTM/Pipe- Analyzed
specific (see
Table 2-1)
M2 (Grade 11) 0.21/0.20 NRb 1.465 E15 7.66 91,874c

[24]
VV (Grade 11) 0.00/0.00 18 1.64 E17 7.00 91,874

[4]
M1 (Grade 22) 0.20/0.24 8 5.582 E07 10.82 84,043c

[26]
JJ (J) (Grade 0.10/0.07 16 1.319 E13 6.26 84,043

22) [4]
E (Grade 22) 0.00/0.00 5 8.288 E08 9.16 79,736

[4]
a: Constants for Norton Law: Minimum creep rate, = A n exp (-Q/T); & in hr-1, in ksi, T in R.
b: NR: Not Reported
c: Assumed value where data insufficient for estimation.
Benchmarking Laboratory Crack Growth Data Against Field Failures
The benchmarking of laboratory-based predictions of crack growth against field experience

represents a critical aspect of the Guidelines development. This is particularly true given the
emphasis on integrating inspectability and remaining life prediction on the basis of flaw
detection reliability and flaw tolerance. Uncertainties exist with regard to the application of
laboratory creep crack growth test data to predicting crack growth in an in-service seam-welded
high-energy pipe. The sources of uncertainty include the applicable materials crack growth
behavior (da/dt-Ct or -C* algorithm) and the applicable intensification (multiplier) on the crack
growth driver, Ct (see Section 1). The benchmarking exercise is not an attempt to validate the
procedure, but rather, is intended to develop a realistically conservative method for using the
available laboratory creep crack growth rate data to estimate the rate of crack growth in an
operating seam-welded pipe. Three criteria are defined for the acceptability of the crack growth
estimation procedure:
1. Where estimated oxide dating growth periods are available in case of failed/cracked seam
weldments, the procedure should predict a crack growth period of comparable or smaller
magnitude.
2. The empirically developed intensification on the crack driver (multiplier on Ct or C*), which
produces a growth period in agreement with the oxide datingbased estimate or a growth
2-18
period lower in magnitude than the service life, should be reasonable when compared with
values analytically estimated by Stevick and Finnie [14] (= 24 as shown in Figure 1-12).
3. The generic recommended procedure (using generic materials properties) should produce
reasonable growth periods relative to service life and oxide dating life (where available)
for all known cracking/failure experience, across-the-board. This also implies that the crack
growth life should be consistently less than the service life, allowing for time to initiation or
for incubation of a pre-existing defect.
Table 2-4
Effect of Service Exposure on da/dt-Ct Behaviora
Plant t/tR Creep Crack Growth Creep Crack Growth

ASTM/Pipe-specific Behavior -- Behavior --
(see Table 2-1) Weld Metal Fusion Line
M2 (Grade 11) [24] 0.21/0.20 Mean Mean
VV (Grade 11) [4] 0.00/0.00 Mean -1 Std. Dev.
M1 (Grade 22) (Low 0.20/0.24 Mean Mean

Inclusions) [26]
M1 (Grade 22) (High 0.20/0.24 Mean +1 Std. Dev.

Inclusions) [26]
JJ (J) (Grade 22) [4] 0.10/0.07 +1 Std. Dev. +12 Std. Dev.
E (Grade 22) [4] 0.00/0.00 Mean NAb
a: See Table 1-5, and Figures 1-9 and 1-10.

b: NA: Not Available
The following observations and inferences affecting the application of laboratory creep crack
growth data to the operating pipe are documented.
Observations Relating to Cracking Preceding Failure. Two sets of observations, when

reviewed within the context of current understanding of damage accumulation and crack growth,
provide at least a qualitative indication of the nature of damage accumulation and the rate of
crack growth in service:
1. The frequency and distribution of crack damage in a given seam-welded pipe spool piece or
piping system.
The most striking example of this characteristic is the case of Plant S2, from which numerous
HRH pipe spool pieces were removed from service, ultrasonically inspected, and
metallographically examined. In this instance, four spool pieces, including the failed spool
2-19
piece, showed fusion line cracking. The crack depths were not characterized over the entire
length of each crack, although metallographic and ultrasonic examination at selected
locations suggest significant variation in crack size as a function of location in the piping
system. The experience of discovering cracks in many locations in a seam-welded piping
system following a failure or following the initial discovery of cracking is common to many
of the failure and cracking instances listed in Table 1-1a. Examples include: M1, where
numerous (>15) toe cracks, with at least one of 0.25 inch (6.4 mm) depth, were found in
addition to a few instances of fusion line cracking confirmed by plug sampling; M2, where
subsurface fusion line cracking similar to the crack causing failure was observed in several
HRH pipe sections; J, where UT-detectable cracks away from the primary crack of concern
were found in the spool piece. The cases, S2, M1, and M2 are striking, because they
represent failed piping instances, and the examinations were conducted immediately
following the failures.
A qualitative inference can be made from these observations relating to the probability of
detecting cracking in advance of final failure. There emerged a concern for the ability of
nondestructive inspection methods to reliably detect damage and cracking sufficiently in
advance of failure to permit manageability of the seam-welded pipe cracking problem. The
concern arose primarily from a few instances of failure following an inspection. The failure
in case of S2 occurred approximately 3 years following an ultrasonic inspection. In this
instance, the inspection had not been performed in accordance with the EPRI recommended
procedure. Further, a review of the ultrasonic response of that inspection at the specific
location where failure occurred indicated that the EPRI inspection and evaluation procedure
would have, in all likelihood, given indication of cracking or damage at this location. This is
believed to be true even though the sensitivity used for the inspection was less than that
required by the EPRI procedure. Similarly, pre-failure ultrasonic inspections in instances of
cracking and failure in main steam pipe section seam weldments (MS2 and MS3) were also
not conducted in accordance with the EPRI procedure. In contrast, implementation of the
EPRI procedure following the 198586 failures in Mohave and Monroe produced a database
of cracking experience (used in development of these Guidelines). As discussed in Section 1,
the EPRI procedure has been successfully applied by approximately 50% of the utilities
surveyed to help them detect seam weldment defects; some utilities have detected large flaws
early enough to avoid failures. This experience is direct testimony to the effectiveness of the
procedure in detecting cracking in advance of failure.
The observation of numerous detectable cracks of varying size at any given instant in time
indirectly suggests that the width of the time window for detecting a crack in advance of
failure is not as narrow as may be thought. This inference results from the fact that crack
initiation time, or time to reach detectable crack size, is widely varying and distributed,
depending on local stress, material conditions, etc. If the rate of growth of a detectable crack
is rapid enough to produce a narrow time window (scenario of major concern), there
naturally results a low probability of finding a multitude of cracks at any given inspection.
Figure 2-4 schematically and qualitatively illustrates the point by comparing the progression
of several cracks for two scenarios: Figure 2-4a, the scenario of concern, where relatively
rapid crack growth occurs in the detectable phase (above the threshold of detection), resulting
in a narrow time window for crack detection and a relatively low probability of discovering
multiple cracks in any given inspection; and Figure 2-4b, a scenario which in detectable
cracks grow in a more gradual manner, resulting in a larger time window for crack detection
2-20
and a greater probability of discovering several cracks in any given inspection. The vertical
dashed line has been arbitrarily chosen to represent an inspection event coincident with the
failure caused by growth of the first crack. Any other choice for the inspection event would
produce similar conclusions. The gradual growth scenario of Figure 2-4b is more consistent
with the observations made to date.
2. Crack morphology and damage gradients.
Application of laboratory-based crack growth rate data (Figures 1-9 and 1-10) to predicting
damage progression in a seam-welded pipe assumes the growth of a single crack. In reality,
metallographic examination of the nature of fusion line cracking in HRH seam-welded pipe
has shown, in most instances (S1, S2, M2, J, G2), that cracking occurs as discontinuous
microcracks (see Figure 1-3), progressively forming across the section in a time-dependent
manner; (i.e., at any instant, a significant gradient in microcrack damage exists across the
section). This morphological aspect of cracking is particularly common where the fusion line
is oriented at an angle to the radial plane, where microcracking is confined to the fusion line,
and where microcracking occurs due to creep cavitation under the action of the primary hoop
stress (microcracks are therefore oriented in the radial direction) [2].
2-21
Figure 2-4
Schematic showing crack growth of several cracks staggered in time.
2-22
Figure 2-5 is a schematic illustrating the evolution of this form of fusion line cracking seen in the
case of double-V seam-welded HRH piping. Creep microcracks initiate locally at the subsurface
weld cusp region very near the fusion line. This microcrack-damaged zone then grows toward
the pipe inside surface by progressive formation of microcracks confined to the near-fusion-line
region and to a region immediately ahead of the current microcrack-damaged zone. The
progressive growth of the microcrack-damaged zone, beginning from the cusp, follows the
through-wall stress gradient effected by cusp geometry and weldbase metal creep rate
mismatch. This zone continues its growth, reaching the pipe inside surface. During this time,
link-up of microcracks in the early wake of this growing zone may produce a macrocrack, with
the microcrack form of damage continuing to occur at the zones leading edge. Final failure
occurs by link-up of microcracks to form a macrocrack, and growth of the macrocrack toward
the pipe outside surface. The accumulation of crack damage may therefore be described as the
time-dependent growth of a crack-damaged zone across the section. The application of single
crack fracture mechanics therefore often implicitly assumes the simplification that the damage
zone represents a growing crack. It is important to note that the UT experiments conducted on
S2 (see reference [2]) have shown that a microcrack-damaged zone (zone of discontinuous
microcracks) is detected and sized with a reliability comparable to that seen for the single
continuous crack. Therefore, use of inspection results with the single-crack simplification is
relatively straightforward. Further, as noted, application of the mechanics for the growth of a
single crack in the radial direction will expectedly predict in-service crack advance rates faster
than the rate of advance of a microcrack-damaged zone growing into undamaged material; (i.e.,
the laboratory-based predictions should be generally conservative).
Oxide Dating of Cracks. The thickness of the oxide formed on the crack surface can provide
a quantitative estimate of the crack surface time of exposure to the oxidizing agent (steam at the
pipe ID, air at the OD). The kinetics of oxide growth on low-alloy steel in steam and in air have
been published [37, 38], so that the age of a particular crack can be estimated by measurement of
the crack surface oxide thickness (oxide dating). Crack age estimations can be uncertain because
oxide growth kinetics are not precisely known and the measured oxide thickness may not
completely represent the oxidation due to steam (spallation, for example, will reduce thickness).
Nevertheless, the limited amount of oxide dating of ex-service seam weldment cracks provides,
perhaps, the only direct observational evidence of the age of such cracks. Following are a few
instances where specific conclusions have been made with regard to oxide dating of cracks.
2-23
Figure 2-5
Schematic illustrating the evolution of creep damage in case of double-V seam-welded
HRH piping
2-24
In case of S1, an unpublished failure analysis report concluded, on the basis of the crack surface
oxide thickness, that a crack of two-thirds of the pipe wall thickness was in existence prior to
the final tensile-type failure for an extended period of time (possibly as long as 17 years).
In case of S2, it has been concluded [2] that oxide dating of the cracked surfaces shows that ID-
connected cracks existed for at least 3 years. In addition, significant creep damage gradients
across the pipe wall and a discontinuous, staggered microcrack form of damage (as opposed to a
single crack) indicate that a cusp-initiated (midwall) crack would therefore have existed for
considerably more than three years. The crack ultimately causing the leak failure was probably
detectable, via UT, at least 5 years preceding failure.
In case of M2, crack and pipe ID oxide thicknesses following rupture have been reported at 10
100 m (0.00040.004 inch) and 150200 m (0.00590.0079 inch), respectively [39]. The data
indicate crack exposure to steam exceeding 21,000 hours, when estimated for the 100 m (0.004
inch) crack surface oxide and the 200 m (0.008 inch) ID oxide (for 88,000 operating hours and
assuming parabolic growth kinetics*). The thickest crack oxide is chosen to represent the
earliest crack, and the thickest ID oxide is chosen to provide the shortest crack steam exposure
time when normalized for the ID oxide. Given that this crack age represents a period of
exposure to steam, and that cracking initiated subsurface, a detectable crack would have existed
for more than 3 years.
In case of M1, it has been concluded on the basis of air oxidation kinetics, that fractographic
and oxidation studies revealed that the failure developed at the OD from a pre-existing crack (toe
crack) that was 40,00050,000 hours old. The crack was slow growing [7]. The total lifetime
of M1 (97,000 hours) therefore implies that the growth period was approximately 47,00057,000
service hours.
The above observations support a gradual growth process and a time window of reliable crack
detection exceeding 35 years. Indeed, the oxide dating information in combination with the
benchmarked crack growth rate predictions from laboratory fracture-mechanics test data provide
a realistically conservative estimate of the detectable crack growth period exceeding 5 years.
Results of Crack Growth Benchmarking. The computations were all conducted using the
BLESS-Pipes module of the BLESS Code, version 4.0 [34], excluding primary creep and using
the creep-fatigue growth prediction (Ct-average over each cycle) for the start-up/shut-down
cycle. Where plant-specific cycle data were unavailable, a monthly cycle (720 hours) is assumed
in the analysis. Primary creep has been excluded, because the limited laboratory accelerated test
data on primary creep could not be reliably extrapolated to service loading conditions. The
empirically benchmarked crack growth prediction procedure is intended to capture primary creep
effects, if significant. Appendix G describes how to use BLESS (-Pipes) for crack growth.
[Note: The Appendix G method also applies to the current version (4.2) of the BLESS Code for
Pipes.] The benchmarking exercise was conducted in two steps.
* Four specific oxide growth kinetics laws [38] predict the following effective operating steam
temperature and crack surface exposure times to steam: Foster-Wheeler {1021F, 10,250 h}; Aptech {1011F,
16, 620 h}; GA Technologies/EPRI {990F, 27,500 h}; Laborelec {965F, 22,000 h}.
2-25
Step 1: Examine crack growth predictions against the oxide dating growth period and the
service life where weldment-specific creep rate and crack growth data are available. These
include plants M2 and M1 with oxide dating information, and plant J where no oxide information
is available.
Step 2: Select a generic procedure for estimating crack growth lifetime by comparison of this
lifetime with the service life and available oxide dating periods for all plant cases. The crack
growth lifetime is defined as the growth period from a 0.05-inch (1 mm) deep crack to failure or
final observed crack size as reported. The 0.05 inch (1 mm) crack size is the threshold detection
size used as a default size when the ultrasonic examination shows no indications.
The exercise focuses on empirically estimating the appropriate multiplier on the crack-tip driver,
Ct or C*. The generic procedure uses generic material creep rate and crack growth properties;
the creep rate properties are representative of average cross-weld behavior, and the crack growth
properties used are representative of average (median) weld metal crack growth behavior. For
the data analyzed, the weld metal crack growth behavior consistently produced shorter predicted
lifetimes than did the fusion line behavior for the plant cases studied. In the interest of
conservatism and reliability with generating and using crack growth data, the weld metal crack
growth behavior is recommended for use in the lifetime prediction.
Step 1
Table 2-5 summarizes the predictions of crack growth lifetime based on weldment-specific data
for the cases where such data are available (M2, M1, J). In case of M2 and J, the initial crack is
assumed to be 0.05 inch (1 mm) deep at the midwall. In case of M1, the initial crack is at the
OD (OD toe crack reported). Possible initial (pre-existing) toe crack sizes used for M1 are 0.05
and 0.1 inch (1 and 2 mm). Table 2-5 shows that a multiplier of 3 or 4 on Ct generally produces
crack growth lifetime predictions that are consistently below the service period, and in
reasonable agreement with the oxide datingbased estimates. The empirical estimation of the
required multiplier (34) is also consistent with the analytical findings of Stevick and Finnie [14]
(see Figure 1-12). Most importantly, the calculations show that laboratory crack growth data-
based life predictions may be empirically interpreted for application to the field case.
What remains is the development of the most generic crack growth calculation procedure that
can be realistically used where weldment-specific material properties are unavailable.
Table 2-5
Crack Growth Life Using Weldment-Specific Creep Rate and Crack Growth Data
Plant Service Oxide Crack Crack Crack Crack

Life (kHrs) Dating Growth Life Growth Life Growth Life Growth Life
Growth (kHrs) for (kHrs) for (kHrs) for (kHrs) for
Period 1 x Ct 2 x Ct 3 x Ct 4 x Ct
(kHrs)
M2 88 >21 130 73 53 42
(likely >30)
2-26
M1a 97 4757 158 91 67 53
M1b 97 4757 102 59 43 35
J 184 NAc 77 47 35 29
M2: Fusion line creep crack growth data [24]. C3 = 0.105, q = 0.861, A = 1.465 E+15, n = 7.66, Q = 91,874; 720-
hr cycle assumed.
M1: High inclusion weld metal data [26]. C3 = 0.221, q = 0.809, A = 3.757 E+08, n = 10.18, Q = 84,043;
720-hr cycle assumed.
a: 0.05 inch (1 mm) OD initial crack
b: 0.1 inch (2 mm) OD initial crack
J: Fusion line crack growth data [4]. C3 = 0.147, q = 0.737, A = 1.32 E+13, n = 6.26, Q = 84,043; 550-hr cycle
as reported.
c: NA = Not available.
Step 2
The second step of the benchmarking exercise examines how a generic description of in-service
crack growth would describe all of the available quantitative failure and cracking experience.
The cases studied include M1, J, G2, and B (Grade 22) and S1, S2, M2, and F (Grade 11). Table
2-6 summarizes the application of the generic procedure, which uses the creep rate constants of
Table 1-6, Grade 22 ex-service cross-weld [4] data and the current BLESS default P11 properties
for Grade 11, and the weld metal crack growth rate behavior for Grades 11 and 22 reported in
Table 1-5. The table contains results for multipliers of 1 through 4 on the BLESS-estimated Ct
value. Except as noted in the table footnote, an initial midwall crack of 0.05 inch (1 mm) depth
is assumed, the growth period is to failure, and the cycle is 720 hour per month. Pipe dimensions
and operating steam conditions are as reported in Table 1-1a.
Table 2-6
Generic Crack Growth Predictions vs. Service Life*
Plant Service Life Crack Growth Crack Growth Crack Growth Crack Growth
(kHrs) Life (kHrs) for Life (kHrs) for Life (kHrs) for Life (kHrs) for
1 x (Median) Ct 2x (Median) Ct 3 x (Median) Ct 4 x (Median) Ct
M2 (Grade 88 113 69 52 42
11)
S1 (Grade 11) 120 89 54 41 34
S2 (Grade 212 89 54 41 34
11)a
F (Grade 11) 101 161 99 74 60
M1(Gr. 22)b 97 115 70 53 42
J (Grade 22)c 184 343 207 154 125
2-27
G2 (Gr. 22)d 184 336 207 154 125
B (Grade 22)e 80 392 236 175 141
* generic creep and crack growth properties:
Creep Rate. Grade 22: A = 2.305 E+12, n = 6.93, Q = 84,043 (Table 1-6, data on ex-service cross-weld [4])
Grade 11: A = 3.712 E+11, n = 8.00, Q = 82,432 (Table 1-6, default in BLESS [34])
Crack Growth. Grades 11 and 22: C3 = 4.674E-02, q = 0.7372 (Table 1-5, data on weld metal) a: oxide
dating-based period >3 years [2] b: OD crack, 0.05 inch (1 mm) depth c: final crack size = 0.45 inch (11
mm); 550-hr cycle as reported [4] d: final crack size = 0.825 inch (21.0 mm) e: final crack size = 0.34 inch
(8.6 mm)
The following conclusions are drawn from the results of the exercise summarized in Table 2-6:
(1) It is noted that the 3 x Ct and 4 x Ct generic procedures applied to an initial 0.05 inch (1
mm) crack (crack size defined as being the threshold for detection by the EPRI ultrasonic
examination procedure) produces reasonable estimates of the growth period when compared
against the service life, and particularly when compared against the oxide dating information
(M2, S2, and M1). The only exception, B, where the growth period was overpredicted, is
being investigated. The generally consistent (with service life and oxide dating) growth
periods support use of the generic procedures where the damage process occurs by
heterogeneous initiation.
(2) The 3 x Ct and 4 x Ct generic procedures produce growth period estimates that are
consistent with the >35 year time window for detection of cracking. Note that this level of
intensification on the creep crack growth driver (Ct or C*) has been analytically predicted
[14] for weld-tobase metal creep rate mismatch ratios of 510 (see Figure 1-12).
The following summary points are made:

To ensure additional conservatism, the 4 x Ct crack growth computation procedure is
recommended for use in these Guidelines. The details on use of BLESS and method of crack
growth estimation are provided in Appendix G. The BLESS-Pipes Code, version 4.0 [34]
has been used throughout the benchmarking exercise and a sample code output file is
included in Appendix G for convenient reference. [Note: The current version of the BLESS
Code for Pipes is 4.2.]
The 4 x Ct crack growth computation procedure produced growth lifetimes exceeding 4 to
5 years for an initial crack of size = 0.05 inch (1 mm). Given that the EPRI inspection
procedure is expected to reliably detect cracks of size 0.05 inch (1 mm), the time window
for reliable detection is concluded to be more than 4 to 5 years. This conclusion provides the
key basis for supporting the manageability of the seam-welded piping integrity issue through
establishing of reasonable reinspection intervals.
The steady-state (no cycling) predictions with BLESS have been shown to be quantitatively
comparable to predictions made with SLIC2 [30] and PCPIPE [31]. Examples illustrating
this are shown in Table 2-7 for a steady-state loading case.
2-28
The BLESS Code has been used in this study and is recommended for pipe evaluation.
However, equivalent crack growth calculation procedures (e.g., PCPIPE) may be used,
provided the material property inputs are consistent. Note that while the codes produce
comparable results for steady-state conditions, for cycling conditions, results can differ
due to the difference in the treatment of creep-fatigue crack growth by each code.
BLESS provides for cyclic crack growth estimation using Ct averaged over the transient
portion of the cycle. PCPIPE estimates crack growth during the transient via time
integration of Ct computed throughout the transient. BLESS also contains a longitudinal
OD crack solution (not available in PCPIPE) and automatically transitions from a buried
to surface-connected crack solution when calculating crack growth lifetime for a buried
flaw. The automated transitioning does not require consecutive, separate analyses for the
buried flaw and the flaw once it breaks through either surface.
2-29
Table 2-7
Comparison of Code Predictions (kHrs) for Steady-State Creep Crack Growtha
Plant BLESS SLIC2 PCPIPEb
M2 (P11) 74 68 56
S1, S2 (P11) 59 54 43
F (P11) 120 110 90
M1 (P22)a 75 65 69
J (P22) 364 340 276
G2 (P22) 317 298 247
B (P22) 590 546 478
a. Using steady-state loads (no cycles), C3 = 0.105, q = 0.7372, from Eq. (1-1); operating conditions from Table 1-1a;
initial crack size = 0.05 inch (1 mm) @ midwall, except for OD crack for M1; Codes run to failure except for final crack
size = 0.45 inch (11 mm) for J, 0.82 inch (21 mm) for G2, and 0.34 inch (8.6 mm) for B; A = 3.712E+11 for P11,
2.305E+12 for P22; n = 8 for P11, = 6.93 for P22; Q = 82,432 for P11 and = 84,043 for P22; constants from Eq. (1-4).
b. Pressure have been reduced to match the Code-calculated stress (mean-diameter hoop) with that of BLESS and
SLIC2 (inside diameter hoop).
The detection threshold of 0.05 inch (1 mm) is based on the inspection capability of the EPRI
procedure and is not a required criterion for any particular evaluation. The evaluation
procedures described may be carried out for any inspection method, provided a reliable
detection threshold crack size can be defined (required for a default crack assumption where
no inspection indications are found) and conservative sizing is ensured. Naturally, remaining
life predictions will vary as a function of the assumed crack size. Appendix G provides an
example of the sensitivity of assumed crack size to remaining life, using BLESS and a
fictitious pipe case.
The exercise empirically benchmarked laboratory test-based crack growth predictions against
the available field experience in order to provide a realistically conservative interpretation of
laboratory crack growth data. The exercise did not attempt to validate the approach.
Conservatism is expected because the benchmarking is conducted against the significantly
cracked or failed pipe cases representing a small fraction of the population of HRH piping.
Creep Cavitation Damage
Weld Metal Cavitation. Remaining life in case of weld metal cavitation can be estimated
using a cavity classification method. The method can be applied in case of seam weldments
where cavitation is observed (with no cracking) following sample removal and metallographic
evaluation. The cavity classification method was originally pioneered by Wedel and Neubauer
in Germany [40] and became part of the German Code TRD 508. In this scheme, the evolution
of creep damage is categorized into four stages as shown in Figure 2-6: isolated cavities, oriented
cavities, linked cavities (microcracks), and macrocracks. Based on extensive observations on
2-30
steam pipes in German power plants, they estimated the approximate time intervals required for
the damage to evolve from one stage to the next under typical plant operating conditions. Using
this experience, they formulated recommendations corresponding to the four stages of cavitation.
For class A damage, no remedial action would be required. For class B damage, consisting of
oriented cavities, reinspection within 1-1/2 to 3 years would be required. For class C damage,
repair or replacement would be needed within six months. For class D damage, immediate
repair/replacement would be required. Wedel and Neubauer built considerable conservatism into
their recommendations and viewed their technique more as a monitoring technique than as a life
prediction technique. Their procedure, because of its simplicity, has found worldwide support
with power plant operators.
To provide a theoretical and quantitative basis for cavity evolution, Cane and Shammas [41]
used a constrained cavity-growth model and proposed a relation between the number fraction of
cavitated boundaries (A parameter) and the life fraction consumed using heat-specific
constants. Values of these constants either had to be assumed or determined experimentally for
each heat, thus restricting the applicability of the model. Based on interrupted creep tests on
simulated heat-affected zone 1Cr1/2Mo steels, Ellis et al. [42] have concluded that the data had
too much scatter to verify this life-prediction model, but that all the data could nevertheless be
empirically used in the form of a scatterband whose lower limits are defined by:
A = 0.517(t/tr) - 0.186 (2-1)
In using the A parameter method, the specific procedure used to measure A is crucial. The A
parameter is defined as the number fraction of cavitating grain boundaries encountered in a line
parallel to the direction of maximum principal stress. To measure A reproducibly, the procedure
needs to be standardized.
Because Eq. 2-1 was developed using two steels of widely different impurity concentrations, it is
anticipated that the scatterband encompasses most 1Cr1/2Mo steels in service. Limited data on
heat-affected zone samples from 2-1/4Cr1Mo steels also have shown that the cavitation behavior
can be described by Eq. 2-1.
An alternative, easier-to-use method has also been proposed by Ellis et al. [42]. The damage
classifications have been correlated with life fractions, and thus a life fraction range has been
established for each class (see Figure 2-7). The Wedel-Neubauer classifications of material
condition (undamaged, class A, class B, class C, and class D) correspond roughly to expended-
life-fraction (t/tr) values of 0.27, 0.46, 0.65, 0.84, and 1, respectively, using the conservative
lower-bound curve shown in Figure 2-6. Because the expended life fraction corresponding to
various damage classifications is known, the remaining life, trem, can be calculated using the
relationship:
tr
trem = t 1 (2-2a)
t
where t is the service life expended. The remaining life corresponding to various damage
classifications is calculated to be 2.7t, 1.17t, 0.54t, and 0.19t for undamaged material, isolated
2-31
cavitation, oriented cavitation, and microcracking, respectively. By applying a safety factor of

three to the above values, the safe reinspection intervals, treinsp, can be established to be 0.9t,
0.4t, 0.18t, and 0.06t, respectively:
t t tr
treinsp = rem = 1 (2-2b)
3 3 t
This approach has been developed and applied by Paterson as shown in Figure 2-8 [43]. The
figure clearly shows that the reinspection interval is not only a function of the current damage
level, but also the service life elapsed, unlike the Wedel and Neubauer approach, in which the
prescribed reinspection interval is independent of elapsed service life. For all combinations of
damage classification and service life in regime B in Figure 2-8, the new approach results in
increased inspection intervals. Several utilities that have adopted the approach have realized
significant savings in inspection costs [44].
2-32
Figure 2-6
Creep-life assessment based on cavity classification [40].
2-33
Expended Life Fraction (t/tr)
Figure 2-7
The correlation between damage classification and expended creep-life fraction for
1-1/4Cr1/2Mo steels.
2-34
Figure 2-8
Service life vs. reinspection interval for the APTECH/EPRI remaining useful life method
and the Wedel-Neubauer method [43].
2-35
The field replication data forming the basis of the Wedel-Neubauer recommendations have also
been reviewed [45]. When these limited data were analyzed, no consistent trends of cavitation
evolution with operating time or with calculated creep life fraction consumed could be discerned.
The laboratory data generated and analyzed by Ellis et al. appear to be the only available
quantitative basis for setting inspection intervals. The data described so far have been based on
HAZ behavior. Results of Ishizaki et al. [46], shown in Figure 2-9, indicate that the cavitation
susceptibility as a function of creep life fraction expended might be similar for welds as for HAZ
material. The cavity classification approach described above is therefore extended to welds. The
safe reinspection intervals, given by one-third the intervals estimated from Eq. 2-2, are therefore
adopted in these Guidelines in the case of cavitation observed in weld metal (excluding the fine-
grain centerline region) and in coarse-grain HAZ material.
Fine-Grain HAZ (including Type IV) Cavitation. This form of damage and cracking has
been concluded to occur by creep cavitation at the base metal edge of the weldment heat-affected
zone (the Type IV zone or transition region between the fully transformed, fine-grained HAZ
and the partially transformed parent material) and at the weld centerline. The pattern of parallel
multiple weld beads in the weld can create a centerline between the beads which is a fine-grained
HAZ. The fine-grain size as well as concentration of inclusions in this zone can promote creep
damage. By 1993, in the United States, fine-grain HAZ damage had been observed only in a few
cases of main steam seam-welded piping that had been subcritically post-weld heat-treated (weld
centerline in MS1 and MS2; Type IV in MS3 and G1). Plant C, an offshore unit, represented the
only known case of HRH seam-welded piping where significant Type IV damage was observed.
Interestingly, this weldment was also subcritically post-weld heat-treated.
Insufficient data exist for prediction of the rate of growth of a crack in a zone experiencing this
form of fine-grain HAZ cavitation damage. Additionally, it has been suggested that the rate of
crack growth in such zones is relatively rapid. These Guidelines, therefore, simply recommend
near-term spool piece replacement where cracking is observed to occur in conjunction with the
fine-grain HAZ creep cavitation damage, be it at the weld centerline or in the Type IV HAZ.
The various approaches to classifying the creep cavitation damage preceding macrocracking,
however, provide a means of estimating the remaining life for the fine-grain HAZ regions where
no cracking has yet been observed.
2-36
Figure 2-9
Master curves of cavity method (2-1/4Cr1Mo) [46].
2-37
The cavitation-based approach has generally been applied to coarse-grain HAZ cracking in girth
welds. There have been no instances of weld metal or coarse-grain HAZ cavitation resulting in
cracking of seam welds; hence the approach has not been utilized. In cases where cracking
occurs due to a fine-grain HAZ in the weld or in the base metal (e.g., MS1, MS2, and MS3 of
Tables 1-1a and 1-2), the cavity classification method cannot be applied.
Advanced fine-grain HAZ damage is characterized by profuse intergranular cavitation in the

creep-weak area of the HAZ. The particular microstructural characteristics associated with this
form of cracking are believed to promote high crack growth rates. This suggests that the
evolution of damage from the observation of cavitation to macro-cracking can be swift and
cannot be dealt with using the German cavity classification system. Therefore, the current
approach in some countries is to replace completely the affected weldment if any stage of fine-
grain HAZ damage is confirmed.
Cane and Aplin [47] have advocated a cavity density approach for estimating remaining life
under Type IV HAZ cavitation conditions. In this approach, the following correlations are used.
Life Fraction Consumed (LF) = t/tr = [1 - (1 - N/Nr)] (2-3)
1 LF
The remaining life or life to crack initiation trem = top [ ] (2-4)
LF
top is the service duration, N is the cavity density, Nr is the cavity density at failure (which is a
material property), and and are material properties. Based on their observations at one U.S.
plant, Cane and Aplin determined that Nr ~ 4800 cavities/mm2 (approximately 3.10 x 106
cavities/in2).
In general, Type IV or fine-grain HAZ cavitation is localized in the through-wall direction. This
is due to the fact that stress gradients typically exist through the wall of the pipe. In girth welds
with axial loads, the maximum stress may occur near OD; in long seam welds, stress gradients
(as discussed earlier) can be effected by geometry
(e.g., weld shape, roof, ovality) and stress redistribution due to creep and creep rate differences
between weldment zones. In Plant C, for instance, a maximum cavity density of 4800
cavities/mm2 (approximately 3.10 x 106 cavities/in2) was found at a region at a wall depth
roughly corresponding to the bottom of the U-groove (cusp between ID pass and U-groove
bottom), but decreased rapidly away from this cusp region. These observations imply that
crack initiation at the region of maximum cavitation will then have to be followed by crack
growth through regions of decreasing cavitation. Hence, use of the Cane and Aplin model
implies some degree of conservatism when applied to a localized damage zone condition.
Basis for Integrity Assessment
The assessment of the inspection capability and of the predictability of damage accumulation
rate in seam-welded high-energy piping, as described in the preceding subsections, may be
quantitatively used to establish the technical bases for a seam-welded pipe evaluation procedure.
2-38
The key findings and conclusions providing the technical bases for development of the pipe
evaluation procedures are as follows:
The EPRI inspection procedure has been demonstrated to detect and reliably size cracks and
microcrack damage zones of depth down to 0.030 inch (0.76 mm) in seam-welded piping.
Based on the laboratory results and on the typical ultrasound wavelength for the application
(0.055 inch or 1.4 mm), which represents a reliably detectable defect size, a threshold
detection crack size (depth) of 0.05 inch (1 mm) is concluded to be a reliable detection
threshold for properly executed field inspections. The results of the EPRI NDE Center utility
surveys are fully consistent with this conclusion.
Review and analysis of the available field experience and laboratory crack growth test data
indicate that UT-detectable damage progresses in a manner that is gradual enough to
realistically permit detection in advance of failure. Benchmarking of the laboratory crack
growth testbased predictions against field experience, including estimation of crack growth
period based on oxide dating of cracks, indicates that a time window of reliable damage
detection is expectedly more than 45 years.
A generic crack growth calculation procedure has been empirically developed as a result of
the benchmarking exercise. The generic procedure, based on the laboratory crack growth test
data obtained on ex-service seam weldments, provides a consistently reasonable prediction of
crack growth rate in all of the cases where actual ex-service weldments were examined and
characterized for crack size and extent of damage. These cases include bends, an elbow, and
a high-inclusion-density weld.
The frequency and distribution of cracking, oxide thickness on cracked surfaces, and the
discontinuous microcrack nature of damage progression support the heterogeneous damage
initiation mechanism as being generally operative. Under such conditions, the approach
provides a reliable means of managing the pipe integrity issue. However, the heterogeneous
damage initiation assumption may be violated and the recommended procedures rendered
potentially unreliable in cases where the stress gradient could be uniform over an appreciable
portion of the pipe wall. Such a case is possible in clamshell elbows and similar fittings and
in pipe cross-sections with a roof or ovality [35]. The geometric, operating, and material
conditions under which a homogeneous damage condition occurs, however, cannot be
specified. This is due to the lack of field observations in support of the mechanism and due
to the lack of analytical predictions of the conditions under which stress gradients across the
pipe wall would be uniform.
Review of the body of ex-service cross-weld creep rupture data available in 1993 shows that
the ASTM Minimum rupture curves are better representations of rupture behavior than are
the ASTM Average curves. All the HRH pipe failures consistently occurred in weldments
that had been normalized and tempered or annealed at temperatures above the lower-critical
temperature, with cracking at the fusion line, and at rupture life fractions (fraction of ASTM
Minimum curve life) 20%. Significantly cracked (unfailed) HRH pipe seam weldments
similarly showed life fractions exceeding 10%. The main steam lead line failure cases
(failures in the weld centerline or in the Type IV HAZ) all occurred in subcritically post-weld
heat-treated weldments and showed threshold life fractions, estimated on the same basis,
10%. These observations indicate that the ASTM Minimum curvebased consumed life
fraction may be useful as a screening criterion for deciding on whether a particular seam-
welded pipe merits concern (inspection and evaluation).
2-39
The ex-service weldment stress rupture data analyzed could not be correlated with the
reported weldment creep deformation resistance or creep crack growth behavior (factors
governing the in-service crack growth prediction). The use of ex-service weldment rupture
data is therefore currently limited to a qualitative risk assessment based on life fraction, and a
screening criterion to trigger the first inspection. The evaluation procedures recommended
in these Guidelines are essentially crack growth predictionbased and do not utilize creep
rupturebased inferences beyond the screening criterion. Refer to Section 1 for a discussion
on rupture curves and an approach to using rupture curves for seam weldment life prediction
via empirical adjustment of the curves for service exposure, weld geometry, chemistry, pipe
configuration, system loading, etc. [21].
Numerous metallurgical variables have been, over the years, identified as being contributing
factors to seam-welded piping failure and cracking. These have been reviewed and discussed
in Section 1, and include: weld inclusions and composition, weld angle affecting the stress
redistributiondriven stress intensification, creep rate mismatch between weld and base
metal, and heat treatment. In addition, pipe configurations such as clamshell elbows and
bends have been suggested as being more failure/cracking prone. The effects of such
variables, however, have not been quantified, and the cumulative experience can only be
empirically analyzed at this time. The empirical analysis, which excludes any particular
consideration of such variables, has produced a consistent description of seam-welded piping
behavior in case of HRH piping. This is reflected in the benchmarking exercise.
The above observations and inferences are combined into a pipe evaluation approach that is
inspection- and crack growthbased. Details of the evaluation procedure are contained in the
following sections. The key feature of the procedure is that a threshold detection crack size of
0.050 inch (1.3 mm) is assumed for pipe sections where the EPRI ultrasonic examination
inspection procedure shows no indications, and that the inspection-determined (conservative)
size is used for indications of apparent size exceeding the threshold. Crack growth calculations
are based on the generic procedure utilizing 4 x Ct, where Ct is the median value for weld
metal crack growth rate applied to indication at or near the fusion line. The recommended crack
growth calculation procedure is contained in BLESS (-Pipes) version 4.0 or later (or equivalent),
and the creep rate parameters for estimation of Ct specified as defaults if pipe-specific data are
unavailable. In HRH piping, the interior weld metal indications are treated with a lower
multiplier (than for the fusion line flaw) on the median Ct, and all other significant indications
are considered as fusion line flaws. Indications in the main steam seam weldments are evaluated
through sampling and metallography (for cavitation).
2-40
3
OVERVIEW OF APPROACH TO PIPE EVALUATION
This section presents an overview of the Roadmap designed to evaluate a seam-welded pipe in
service. Details of the procedures required to execute each of the various steps are included in
the Serviceability Assessment section (Section 6). The Roadmap (essentially the same as the
1996 update of the 1987 Guidelines Roadmap) and the accompanying evaluation procedures
have been developed from the Technical Bases (Section 2). The evaluation procedure has been
developed on the basis of the following key elements of the approach.
Key Elements of the Approach

1. Near-Term Inspection.
The seam-welded pipe failure and cracking experience and the concern for the integrity of
operating seam-welded pipe necessitate an inspection in the near-term where inspections in
the last 4 years have not been conducted in accordance with the EPRI Guidelines or
equivalent ultrasonic examination procedures, and where a rupture life-fraction estimate
exceeds 10% based on the ASTM Minimum property curve and an applied stress equal to the
mean-diameter hoop stress. Results from inspections conducted using the 1987 Guidelines
should be evaluated per the procedures outlined, in order to determine whether planned
inspection intervals merit change. Note that, until inspection of the seam weldment is
triggered, the Guidelines recommend monitoring of the stress rupture-based life fraction
expended (LFE) by a calculation every six months using actual operating conditions.
2. Desired Inspection Interval (DII).

Run/repair/replace decisions may be made by comparison of the remaining life estimate
obtained using the Guidelines with a reference benchmark Desired Inspection Interval or
DII. The DII may be arbitrarily chosen, may be based on economic considerations, or,
ideally, be based on the appropriate consideration of trade-offs between the costs of
inspection (and benefits) and risks associated with increased interval duration. Additionally,
the DII can evolve from the experience gained with reliable inspection and Guidelines-based
remaining life estimates. The DII may be adjusted (reduced) at any stage as an alternative to
further evaluation. The Guidelines, nevertheless, provide a mechanism for establishing
inspection intervals through estimation of remaining life, trem, independent of whether a DII
has been defined.
3. Time-Window of Crack/Damage Detection.

Oxide dating, crack growth benchmarking of failed piping, definition of ultrasonic
examination or test capabilities, and observations regarding flaw size distributions have
cumulatively helped EPRI conclude that a window exceeding 4 to 5 years exists for an initial
detectable crack of 0.05 inch (1 mm) at the fusion line to grow to failure. This time window
supports the feasibility of managing operating seam-welded high-energy piping, and also
3-1
Overview of Approach to Pipe Evaluation
helps define a reasonable value for DII from a purely technical point of view (as a first
approximation, DII can be set equal to the lower-bound of the time-window based on purely
technical considerations).
4. Inspectability.
There are essentially three critical characteristics of the ultrasonic examination that influence
the evaluation procedure: (i) Detectability of Significant Flaws, (ii) Sizing of Indications, and
(iii) Locating Indications relative to the Weldment Fusion Line. It has been concluded that
the EPRI ultrasonic examination procedure [1] is expected to reliably detect significant flaws
down to a depth dimension of 0.050 inch (1.3 mm). Further, the procedure is expected to
help identify indications that should be considered insignificant (non-propagating). Where
no indications are reportable (above the threshold size of 0.05 inch [1 mm] in depth), the
evaluation procedure (for HRH piping) assumes a fusion line, sub-surface (midwall or cusp-
located) flaw of threshold dimension. Where indications are reported above threshold size,
the indication sizing is conservatively conducted and used as a flaw size in the remaining life
estimation. With regard to indication location, the ultrasonic examination procedure could,
in some instances, identify an indication to be located either in the weld metal interior or
elsewhere. In the case of HRH piping, if the interior weld metal location is not reliably
identified, the evaluation procedure conservatively assumes a fusion line flaw. In the case of
main steam piping, the procedure following identification of an inspection indication
involves sample removal (see below).
While the recommended inspection procedure provides information on the length (parallel to
pipe axis) extent of an indication, no quantitative guidance is offered for use of this
inspection result. The length dimension does not help predict the through-thickness crack
growth rate, and the length extension rate is currently unpredictable (see Section 1 under
Fracture Toughness and Leak-Before-Break). However, recognizing the increased risk of
rupture as the crack length increases, the Guidelines user may wish to compare indication
length against critical crack length computed on a pipe (design/operation)-specific basis
using the lower-bound toughness, JIc = 170 in-lb/in2 (30kJ/m2) and Tearing Modulus, T = 95,
for a through-wall crack. Note that the HRH pipes studied (Table 1-1a and 1-2) gave lower-
bound critical crack lengths in the range, 9.528 inches (240710 mm); see Section 1.
5. Remaining Life and Conservatism of Estimate.

In evaluating the remaining life of pipes, three possible damage/cracking scenarios are
considered: fusion line cracking; interior weld metal cracking (not associated with a fine-
grain weld centerline HAZ); and fine-grain HAZ (Type IV or weld centerline) damage.
A. (1.3 mm) or the estimated indication size if discovered by ultrasonic examination.

The recommended multiplier of 4 on the crack-driver, Ct, as computed in the BLESS,
or equivalent crack growth code, produces realistic predictions when compared
against oxide dating results, independent of whether: (i) weld metal cavitation
accompanies the cracking (e.g., plants S2 and M2 of Table 1-1a); or (ii) a high
inclusion density (without widespread weld metal cavitation) is attributed to be the
cause of cracking (e.g., plant M1 of Table 1-1a). This crack growth-based procedure
is therefore currently recommended where remaining life estimates are made without
the benefit of weldment sample removal and examination. Note that the ultrasonic
interpretation is conservatively made relative to the location of the indication.
3-2
Indications not reliably determined to be in interior weld metal are to be considered

near-fusion line indications for HRH pipe. An additional source of conservatism
must be recognized in that the crack growth procedure was developed from the 1993
benchmarking against the cracking and failure experience representing a small
fraction of the seam-welded piping in service.
Where HRH pipe weldment samples are removed and examined for cavitation and
inclusion density, a less conservative remaining life prediction can be made in cases
where no cavitation is evident and where the inclusion density in the near-fusion line
region is low. The semi-quantitative definition of the severity of inclusions, and the
corresponding recommended multiplier on the estimated Ct for predicting crack
growth using the median da/dt-Ct relationship for weld metal is provided.
Conversely, in the unlikely event that both widespread weld metal cavitation and a
high inclusion density are observed in the as-removed sample with a fusion line crack
(this condition has not been observed in ex-service seam weldments), the
recommendation is for immediate spool piece replacement.
B. Interior Weld Metal Damage (Excluding Weld Centerline HAZ)

The majority of interior weld metal indications noted in seam-welded HRH pipes in
service have been concluded to be non-propagating. Crack growth in weld metal
remote from the fusion line is expected to be relatively unaffected by the stress
redistributions due to the inhomogeneity of creep resistance of the various zones of a
weldment. The weld metal crack-growth rate can be applied in a manner similar to
that for the fusion line cracking prediction, with the exception that as large a
multiplier on the analytically estimated Ct may not be required.
This approach does not cover fine-grain HAZ creep damage and cracking at the weld
centerline observed in case of main steam seam-welded piping. The growth rate of
such damage is not easily predictable, and the cavity classification-based approach to
remaining life is recommended. Where this form of weld centerline (fine-grain HAZ)
damage can be conclusively identified via sample removal and examination, the
remaining life prediction is made as for scenario C below. Interior weld metal flaws
identified purely from inspection are treated for crack growth-based remaining life
prediction using a multiplier of 2 on the BLESS-estimated Ct in case of HRH piping.
For main steam pipe sections, the identification of any significant indication in
inspection is cause for further evaluation by weldment sample removal.
C. Fine-Grain HAZ (Weld Centerline and Type IV) Damage

The experience indicates that this form of damage has been primarily associated with
main steam pipe seam weldments. Early stages of this form of damage may be
identifiable using metallographic, acoustic emission or linear phased array
techniques. The later two techniques offer a nondestructive alternative to a
metallographic examination made on a cross-section of a sample removed from the
pipe seam weldment, however there has been no extensive application to date.
A cavity classification/density-based approach is recommended for evaluating this

form of damage in the absence of a macrocrack (see Section 2). The occurrence of
3-3
macrocracking associated with cavitation damage is recommended to be cause for

immediate replacement of the spool piece.
6. Sampling and Weldment-Specific Properties.

In writing these Guidelines, it is recognized that plant operators would be reluctant to extract
samples from components, although this is becoming increasingly commonplace. The
remaining life estimation based on the conservative interpretation of indications alone may
produce lifetimes and consequent inspection intervals that could be unacceptable. Under
such circumstances, a more accurate, and less conservative characterization of the indications
may be made by the removal of a sample containing the indication. Such an evaluation can
be useful when faced with the problem of resolving many such indications in the spool piece.
Sample evidence of associated creep cavitation, density of nonmetallic inclusions and other
metallurgical factors having an effect on the remaining life calculations can also be
characterized with the sample.
3-4
Figure 3-1
Overall Roadmap for steam pipe evaluation.
3-5
The Roadmap for Seam-Welded Pipe Evaluation
The Roadmap presented in 1987 [1] was updated in 1996 based on additional experience and
the discussions presented in the Sections 1 and 2. The steps in the overall Roadmap, however,
were essentially the same as presented in 1987, except radiography was excluded for the
evaluation. Also, the Disposition step (now Step 7) was considerably expanded and the relevant
evaluation procedures are more quantitative and generally less conservative than those offered in
the 1987 Guidelines. In this 2003 update of the Guidelines, the Roadmap remains virtually
unchanged from the 1996 version (see Figure 3-1), except where noted in Step 5.
The current Guidelines rely on conventional ultrasonic examination on the basis of the
experience acquired and demonstrated performance. Time-of-flight diffraction, linear phased
array, and acoustic emission methods may be used in addition to, or in lieu of, conventional
ultrasonic testing, as appropriate. Using advance ultrasonic methodologies does not change the
basic steps recommended in the Roadmap except for Step 5.
Steps 1 through 4 describe the procedure to make the decision to inspect, the first time these
Guidelines are used. The details of this initial inspection decision methodology are provided
in Section 4: Inspection Decision. Steps 5 through 8 describe the inspection procedure and
evaluation of the serviceability of the piping. Details of the inspection procedure are given in
Section 5: Inspection Methodology, and of the evaluation in Section 6: Serviceability
Assessment. Figure 3-2 summarizes Step 1 of the Roadmap, intended to acquire the necessary
fabrication, construction, operating, and maintenance history pertinent to the steam line.
3-6
Figure 3-2a
Details of Step 1 of the Roadmap.
3-7
STEP DESCRIPTION
1.0 Review fabrication, construction and operating history.
Details of this review are provided in Section 4.
1.1 Review fabrication and construction details to determine if pipe and fittings are
seam-welded, and determine the possibility of material substitution during
construction.
1.2 Review available actual temperature and pressure operational history. Record
number and pressure-temperature characteristics of start-up cycles, number
and pressure-temperature characteristics of load-following cycles, duration and
pressure-temperature characteristics of abnormal operating conditions. For the
evaluation, reasonable, experience-based assumptions may need to be made
for operating history in cases where operating data are not available.
Figure 3-2b
Description of Roadmap, Step 1.
3-8
Figure 3-3a
Details of Roadmap, Steps 2 and 3
3-9
STEP DESCRIPTION
2.0 If records indicate seam-welded piping, proceed to Step 4. Limited physical

verification of seam welds to confirm records may be conducted at this stage.
If seamless piping and fittings are indicated, proceed to Step 3.
3.0 Perform physical verification examination to ensure that piping and fittings are
not seam-welded. The examination can include alloy verification, if needed.
3.1 Select the number and location of joints for verification based on confidence in
the records. At least one location for each pipe size and fitting type would be
included.
3.2 Remove insulation in the selected areas and perform a visual examination.
3.3 If seam-welded, proceed to Step 4. If no seam weld is observed, proceed to

Step 3.4.
3.4 Prepare a smooth surface in 360 band around the pipe.
3.5 Perform one or more of the verification techniques described in Section 4, for
confirmation of seamless pipe.
3.6 If a seam weld is found, proceed to Step 4. If no seam weld is indicated,

proceed with the normal surveillance program, Step 9.
Figure 3-3b
Description of Roadmap, Steps 2 and 3.
3-10
Figure 3-4a
Details of Roadmap, Step 4.
3-11
STEP DESCRIPTION
4.0 Make the decision to inspect based on the evaluations of Steps 4.1 and 4.2.
4.1 Review inspection history. Proceed, depending on whether it has been >48
months since an EPRI Guidelines inspection was performed. Results of an
EPRI inspection performed recently are to be carried through to Step 6:
Serviceability Evaluation. If an EPRI inspection has not been recently
performed, proceed to the Step 4.2 screening test.
4.2 Perform a life-fraction expended screening test to determine the need for an
EPRI inspection in the near-term (within 12 months). The rupture LFE is
calculated for the operating history and the ASTM Minimum property curve
from ASTM Data Series Publications DS50 and DS6S2. Use minimum wall
thickness in calculating the mean-diameter hoop stress for straight sections,
and 1.1 x mean-diameter hoop stress for bends and elbows. If LFE 10%,
proceed to Step 5 (near-term inspection); if not, continue with the normal
program (Step 9) but revert to Step 4.2 after six months of operation.
Figure 3-4b
3-12
Figure 3-5a
3-13
STEP DESCRIPTION
5.0 Perform inspection as described in Section 5.
5.1 Perform hot walk-down of system and record hanger settings, location of broken or
abnormal hanger conditions, and any evidence of inadequate support.
5.2 Remove insulation from the system. (Note acoustic emissions test methods do not
require full removal of insulation, UT methods do.)
5.3 Perform cold walk-down and visual inspection. The visual inspection would include
hanger clamps and bolts, welded attachments, seam welds, girth welds, seal welds on
radiography plugs and thermowells, any evidence of inadequate support, and a general
examination of the pipe surface. The sequence of this inspection is optional. It could also
be performed after cleaning of the pipe surface.
5.4 Clean a band of the pipe surface extending approximately six inches on both sides of the
longitudinal seam and girth welds, and attachment welds if they are to be inspected. The
surface should be free of oil, sand, rust, grease, slag, dirt, loose scale, or any other
extraneous material that could mask indications.
5.5 Perform wet fluorescent magnetic particle examination of the exposed weld attachments,
longitudinal seam and girth welds. Details of this examination are provided in Section 5.
Examination is to be performed prior to ultrasonic examinations.
5.6 (1) Perform straight beam (0) ultrasonic examination for the detection of laminar reflectors
which may interfere with the angle beam examination (Section 5 and Appendix B).
5.7 (1) Perform angle beam ultrasonic examination for the detection of surface-connected and
embedded planar and volumetric reflectors. Details of this examination are provided in
Section 5 and Appendix B. Note wall thickness for each spool piece inspected.
5.8 Indications are to be evaluated for:
Significance, w.r.t. propagating vs. non-propagating.
Size, using techniques described in Section 5 and Appendix E (conservatively

interpreted). (1)
Location, as being definitively in interior weld metal, or otherwise.
5.9 OPTIONAL:
Perform OD surface replication in the areas where indications have been found by the
NDE, as well as at other sites including bends, elbows, section transitions, areas adjacent
to supports, intersections between longitudinal and girth welds, and locations with a
history of prior weld repair. The replication process is described in Section 5.
(1) Steps 5.6, 5.7, and the sizing techniques referenced in Step 5.8 would be modified if advanced UT
methods were used in lieu of conventional UT; see Appendices C and D.
Figure 3-5b
3-14
Figure 3-6a
3-15
STEP DESCRIPTION
6.0 Perform a serviceability evaluation from the inspection results.
6.1 Indications identified per the recommended inspection procedure are classified
as being: significant and reliably located within weld metal [Case 1], or
significant and not reliably locatable within weld metal [Case 2], or absent or
insignificant (non-propagating) [Case 3]. Procedures for evaluating each of
three (3) cases of indications is addressed in Step 7 (Disposition).
Figure 3-6b
3-16
Figure 3-7
Details of Roadmap, Step 7, Case 1 (Conventional UT indication reliably located in weld
metal interior).
3-17
Case 1: Conventional UT Indication Reliably Located in Weld Metal Interior

(Figure 3-7)
Figure 3-7 details the steps recommended for evaluation. Since the weld centerline fine-grain
HAZ creep damage problem cannot be managed without sample removal and cavitation
classification, and since the centerline damage problem is of primary concern in case of main
steam piping seam weldments, sample removal and evaluation (per Step 7.13 of Figure 3-9) is
immediately recommended for the main steam pipe case (see Steps 7.2 and 7.3). In case of HRH
piping, the concern for centerline damage is significantly lower, so that an appropriately
conservative crack growth analysis is recommended (Step 7.4). This step recommends a BLESS
code, or equivalent crack growth analysis for the conservatively sized flaw (see Section 5 for
sizing), using the median weld metal creep crack growth rate with a multiplier of 3 on the crack-
driver, Ct, and the UT-measured wall thickness of the spool piece. An unacceptable remaining
life estimate relative to the DII (Step 7.5) requires more direct evaluation via sample removal and
evaluation as detailed in Step 7.13 (Figure 3-9). Alternatively, spool piece replacement is
recommended within the estimated remaining life period.
Case 2: Conventional UT Indication Not Reliably Located in Weld Metal Interior

(Figure 3-8)
An indication that cannot be reliably determined to be located in the interior weld metal is
evaluated per the procedure of Figure 3-8. Since the fine-grain HAZ creep damage problem
cannot be managed without sample removal and cavity density measurement, and since the fine-
grain HAZ damage problem is of primary concern in case of main steam piping seam weldments,
sample removal and evaluation (per Step 7.13 of Figure 3-9) is immediately recommended for
the main steam pipe case (see Steps 7.8 and 7.9). In case of HRH piping, the concern for fine-
grain HAZ damage is significantly lower, so that an appropriately conservative crack growth
analysis for a fusion line flaw is recommended (Step 7.10). This step is a BLESS code, or
equivalent crack growth analysis for the conservatively sized flaw (see Section 5 for sizing),
using the median weld metal creep crack growth rate with a multiplier of 4 on the crack-driver,
Ct. An unacceptable remaining life estimate relative to the DII (Step 7.11) requires more direct
evaluation via sample removal and evaluation as detailed in Step 7.13 (Figure 3-9) and
subsequent steps as necessary (Figures 3-9 and 3-10a through f). Alternatively, spool piece
replacement is recommended within the estimated remaining life period.
3-18
Figure 3-8
Details of Roadmap, Step 7, Case 2 (Conventional UT indication not reliably located in
weld metal interior).
3-19
Seam Weldment Sample Evaluation
Figure 3-9 summarizes the steps in metallographically evaluating an as-removed seam weldment
sample (containing weld and base metal).
No Damage Observed Metallographically. In the unlikely event that flaws or cavitation

are not found in the sample removed at the inspection indication location, a crack growth
analysis is performed. This default analysis of Step 7.15 is performed using the BLESS code, or
equivalent crack growth analysis for a 0.05-inch (1 mm) deep flaw using weld metal median
creep crack-growth rate properties and a multiplier of 4 on the crack-driver, Ct. The wall
thickness input is as measured on the sample. The flaw center is located specifically at the wall
location corresponding to the as-observed cusp formed at the bead intersection of the inside and
outside passes, or at the depth of the bottom of the U-, or V-groove if the weld is a single groove
joint.
Flaws or Cavitation Found by Metallography. Where flaws or cavities are observed in

Step 7.4, five distinct cases are evaluated in Step 7.18 (Cases A, B, C, D, and E). The cases are
individually detailed in each of Figures 3-10a through f.
Case A: Flaw in Weld metal, No Cavitation (Figure 3-10a). The absence of creep cavities
permits treatment of the weld metal flaw as one that has no relation with the fine-grain HAZ
damage condition sometimes seen at the weld centerline. The evaluation procedure detailed in
Figure 3-10a takes a crack growth-based remaining life prediction for the actual size of flaw
observed, and for median weld metal creep crack growth rate behavior using the BLESS code or
equivalent, with a multiplier of 2 on Ct (see Section 6). The predicted remaining life is compared
against the DII, to proceed to Step 8 if the remaining life-to-DII comparison is favorable. The
alternatives are repair of the affected regions of the spool piece followed by a re-evaluation (Step
1), or replacement of the spool piece, either action to be taken within the estimated remaining life
period.
Case B: Cavitation in Weld Metal (Figure 3-10b). As shown in the detailed Roadmap for this
case (Figure 3-10b), the creep cavitation damage is classified and evaluated accordingly (see
Section 6). The evaluation procedure is per the cavity classification procedure outlined in
Section 2, Eq. (2-2b), which conservatively (factor of safety of 3) recommends a reinspection
interval of 0.4t, 0.18t, and 0.06t (t = accumulated service time) for isolated cavities, oriented
cavities, and linked cavities (microcracks), respectively. Note that the procedure does not apply
to the fine-grain weld centerline (HAZ) damage condition. The macrocrack case, where the
macrocrack is associated with weld metal cavitation, is recommended for spool piece
replacement immediately. Where the remaining life estimate < DII, the spool piece is to be
replaced within the estimated remaining life period.
3-20
Figure 3-9
Seam weldment sample evaluation steps.
3-21
Case C: Flaw at Fusion Line, No Cavitation (Figure 3-10c). The evaluation, as shown in Figure
3-10c, is based on crack growth, the rate of which is set depending upon the classification of the
near-fusion line weld metal inclusion density. In the absence of visible cavitation, it is
concluded that crack growth is evidently not being significantly influenced by aggravated creep
due to stress intensification, and that the acceleration in creep crack growth above the median
rate (1xCt) is likely to be controlled by the local inclusion density. Three classifications of
inclusion density (see Figure 3-10d) are used high, average, and low. The remaining life is
estimated via EPRIs BLESS code, or equivalent crack growth analysis using the observed flaw
size, and the median weld metal creep crack growth behavior with a multiplier of 4.0, 3.0, and
2.0 on Ct for high, average, and low inclusion density, respectively (see Section 6). An
unacceptable remaining life estimate (estimate < DII) will require spool piece replacement within
the estimated remaining life period.
Case D: Flaw at Fusion Line, Creep Cavitation (Figure 3-10e). As seen in Figure 3-10e, two
evaluation paths are recommended, depending upon the extent of cavitation. Where cavitation is
restricted to the crack tip and vicinity, a BLESS code, or equivalent crack growth analysis is
recommended using the observed flaw size and a multiplier of 4 on Ct for median weld metal
creep crack growth behavior (see Section6). An unacceptable remaining life estimate (< DII)
will require spool piece replacement within the estimated remaining life period. Where
cavitation is widespread along the near-fusion line region through an appreciable portion of the
wall thickness, the near-fusion line crack growth rate must be considered too rapid to provide a
useful safe life, and immediate spool piece replacement is recommended.
Case E: Fine Grain HAZ Cavitation/Crack in Base Metal (Type IV) or at Weld Centerline
(Figure 3-10f). As shown in Figure 3-10f, the presence of macrocracking in the Type IV and
fine-grain weld centerline HAZ regions is cause for immediate spool piece replacement. Where
macrocracks are not present, but cavitation is observed, the cavitation is classified as for Case B,
and as described in Section 6, and the remaining life estimated for comparison with the DII. An
unacceptable remaining life estimate
(< DII) will require spool piece replacement within the estimated remaining life period.
3-22
Figure 3-10a
Details of Roadmap, Step 7.18, Case A: As-removed sample shows flaw in weld metal with
no cavitation.
3-23
Figure 3-10b
Details of Roadmap, Step 7.18, Case B: As-removed sample shows cavitation in weld
metal.
3-24
Figure 3-10c
Details of Roadmap, Step 7.18, Case C: As-removed sample shows flaw at fusion line with
no cavitation.
3-25
Figure 3-10d
Sample micrographs for inclusion density classification on as-polished, unetched
metallographic sections: (a) Low, (b) Average, and (c) High.
3-26
Figure 3-10e
Details of Roadmap, Step 7.18, Case D: As-removed sample shows flaw at fusion line with
creep cavitation.
3-27
Figure 3-10f
Details of Roadmap, Step 7.18, Case E: As-removed sample shows fine-grain HAZ
cavitation/cracking in base metal (Type IV) or at weld centerline.
3-28
Figure 3-11
Details of Roadmap, Step 7, Case 3: No Significant Indications
3-29
Case 3: No Significant Indications by Conventional UT Inspection (Figure 3-11)
Steps 7.19 and 7.20 are default crack growth-based remaining life analysis steps. The default
analysis recommended assumes a 0.05 inch-deep (1 mm) midwall crack and crack growth rate as
described by median creep crack-growth behavior of weld metal with a multiplier of 4 on the
estimated crack-driving parameter, Ct as computed by the BLESS, or equivalent crack growth
code. An unacceptable remaining life, where the remaining life < DII, requires further
evaluation via sample removal. Sample removal recommendations are provided in Step 7.21.
These include sampling at bends, clamshell elbows (intrados), and regions showing evidence of
high inclusion content from surface replication. The alternative is spool piece replacement
within the estimated remaining life period.
The cross-section metallographic examination of Step 7.22 characterizes the damage present as
flaws and cavities. In the unlikely event that significant damage as cavitation and flaws is found
by metallography, the evaluation proceeds as for Step 7.18 (Figure 3-9).
In the absence of cavitation or flaws, the evaluation proceeds in Steps 7.24 through 7.26. These
steps involve additional evaluation effort in the unlikely situation where no apparent damage
exists, but where crack growth predictions of remaining life are unacceptable in comparison with
the DII. The user is reminded that reductions in DII (earlier reinspection) may result in the
procedure not calling for sample removal (Step 7.20). Steps 7.24 through 7.26 involve a
weldment-specific cross-weld test (Step 7.24) rupture life-based evaluation. The criterion of
Step 7.25 LFE 10% is similar to the screening criterion, but is pipe weldment-specific.
An LFE <10% permits the user to return to the Normal Program of Step 9, with semi-annual
checks on the LFE. An LFE 10% suggests that concern for the future integrity of the piping
cannot be completely eliminated. Since the sampling and sample evaluation following the
inspection confirmed the inspection results (no indications,) and also showed no evidence of the
early, non-detectable stages of creep damage, the subsequent evaluation includes a crack growth-
based assessment. However, a default crack size of 0.030 inch (0.76 mm), reduced from the
original default of 0.050 inch (1.3 mm), is used. The reduction is intended to take appropriate
credit for the metallographic evidence in the as-removed sample. The specific value of 0.030
inch (0.76 mm) is chosen to approximate the threshold reliable microcrack damage zone
detection level of the EPRI procedure as demonstrated in the laboratory (see Section 2). It is
important to note that the very unlikely event that the crack growth analysis produces
unacceptable remaining life when compared against the DII is a reflection of an unrealistically
high DII, or of assumed future loading conditions that would significantly lower the seam weld
tolerance for flaws.
3-30
Step 8: Establish Reinspection Interval and Extent
The ultimate manner in which the reinspection interval and extent is decided upon will depend
upon the utility, since numerous factors beyond the technical ones are to be considered in
establishing these maintenance parameters. Nevertheless, the Guidelines offer a mechanism for
developing the technical input required for the decision-making process.
The Guidelines recommend a maximum reinspection interval equal to the remaining life
estimate. While this maximum interval is the least conservative of the available ones, the
conservatism built into the remaining life estimate is expected to guard against failure occurring
before this maximum reinspection interval (remaining life estimate). Naturally, the utility can
perform an earlier (than the maximum interval) reinspection, depending upon economics and/or
a desire to further increase conservatism.
The Guidelines have been written to require 100% of seam weldment inspection when an
inspection is recommended. However, the evaluation procedure is applied on a spool piece-by-
spool piece basis, and since recommended reinspection intervals will differ from spool piece to
spool piece, 100% reinspection of an entire high energy piping system will seldom be required at
a single instance.
The recommendation for 100% inspection is one that is made on a purely technical basis. It is
clear that other utility-specific considerations, such as location of piping with respect to
personnel traffic, age of piping and future plans for the unit, failure consequences, outage costs,
etc., will enter into the maintenance decision process.
3-31
4
INSPECTION DECISION
The steps leading through the first inspection decision (Step 4) and the details of the procedures
involved in each step are provided in this section. Figure 4-1, reproduced from Figure 3-1,
highlights the steps of interest.
Fabrication and Operating History
Review of Fabrication Details
A thorough review of the fabrication and construction details (Step 1.1) is necessary to determine
whether seam-welded pipe was indeed installed in the plant. Several utilities, employing a
cursory review, concluded that seamless pipe was installed, and then later discovered seam welds
when insulation was removed for verification. The possible substitution of seam-welded pipe for
seamless pipe should be investigated. As an example, in one case where the material
specification required seamless CrMo steel A335 Grade P22, a note was found on the installation
drawing stating that A155 Class 1, Grade 2-1/4Cr1Mo (seam-welded) was a suitable alternate.
Additionally, there are occasions where seam-welded pipe was bent (for bends/elbows) and the
records do not state the presence of seam welds. If the bends/elbows are made from welded
forgings, the specifications typically show that seam welds are present by WP11 or WP22. It
should be noted, however, that absence of the WP11 or WP22 designation does not necessarily
indicate seamless bends/elbows.
During the review, check for evidence of repair or replacement during the service life of the
plant. Occasionally, different materials have been installed during replacement, and the
replacement piping may be seam-welded whereas the balance of the system may be seamless, or
the opposite may be true.
Other available fabrication details should be documented, including the weld joint geometry,
number of passes, weld procedure including the flux used, post-weld heat treatment (stress-relief,
high-temperature anneal, or normalize-and-temper), and post-weld surface grinding.
4-1
Inspection Decision
Figure 4-1
Details of overall Roadmap highlighting the steps leading up to the first inspection
decision.
4-2
Inspection Decision
Review of Operating History
Step 1.2 of the Roadmap consists of a review of the operating history of the unit. Evidence of
operation above design temperature or pressure should be noted, along with histories of broken,
bottomed-out, or topped-out hangers and supports. The number of start-up cycles and load-
following cycles, as well as the duration and characteristics of the steady-state phases, should be
recorded. Cycles of abnormal operation should be characterized (temperature-pressure-duration)
and noted. The operating history data are to be used in a preliminary life fraction expended
(LFE) estimation for assisting in making the inspection decision. Reasonable, experience-based
assumptions may need to be made for operating history in cases where operating data are not
available.
Locating Seam Welds
Should inspection of the seam weldment be required (per Step 4), the location of the weld must
first be determined per Step 3 of the Roadmap (see Figure 4-1). If the weld has not been ground
smooth, radiography (either with isotope or high-energy radiation) may be used to locate the
seam weld through the insulation. In some cases, the longitudinal seam welds have been ground
flush and cannot easily be located with radiography or visually after insulation removal. If the
seam weld cannot be seen, there are two available methods to locate the weld: the acid etch and
eddy current techniques. These techniques should also be used to verify that the pipe is, in fact,
seamless when no records can be found to indicate the presence of seam welds. If needed, on-
pipe verification of the alloy grade (11 or 22) can also be made as part of this phase of the
evaluation, using one of several commercially available nondestructive surface analyzers.
Visual
Visual on-pipe verification of seam welds can be performed after removal of insulation. The
verification may necessitate viewing axially down the length of the pipe and feeling the surface
with the fingertips in order to locate the seam weld. RT (Radiography) index numbers, if visible,
would facilitate visual verification in the near vicinity of the numbers. Note that visual
inspection cannot verify the absence of a seam weld.
4-3
Inspection Decision
Radiography
Radiography may be performed with the insulation in place to locate the weld by observing the
external weld reinforcement. Radiography can be accomplished during operation of the unit. A
few plants have welds that have been ground flush and cannot be seen visually or with
radiography. In this case, other weld identification methods are recommended.
Acid Etch
An acid etch can be used to enhance the visibility of the weld. Macroetchants, such as a
saturated solution of ammonium persulfate or a 25% nitric acid-in-water solution, may be used.
Surface preparation for etching requires grinding and polishing down to a 600 grit finish. A
progression of abrasive grits e.g., 120, 180, 240, 320, 400, and 600 may be used. The
etchant should be swabbed uniformly on the pipe surface and allowed a dwell time of
approximately 15 to 90 seconds. The procedure should make the weld apparent, if present.
Post-etch cleaning should be performed immediately following weld identification, and should
consist of a surface water wash, reagent-grade alcohol cleaning, then drying.
Eddy Current
Eddy current examination involves using a varying magnetic field to induce eddy currents into
an electrically conductive material, then monitoring the changes in signal response due to
material property variations and their subsequent effects on electrical conductivity. Experience
with several field-removed pipes has proven the technique to be effective.
In this application, the change in material properties between the weld and base material is, in
many instances, quite small due to the material normalization caused by extended exposure to
high, cyclical temperatures. In addition, localized magnetic permeability variations, which are
evident in all ferromagnetic materials, can sometimes make signal interpretation difficult.
However, field-removed pipe samples from several plants demonstrated successful results.
Material property variations between the weld and base metal have been sufficient to deliver an
identifiable signal response, and in all cases the weld was identified using the technique
described.
Surface preparation involves the removal of rust, scale, and any other foreign material on the
pipe outside surface. Special care should be taken to remove foreign material of an electrically
conductive nature. A wide band (approximately 5 times the inspection coil diameter) should be
prepared around the circumference of the pipe so that multiple scans can be made at a given
circumferential location. Superficial rust and less adherent matter can be removed with a flapper
or grinding wheel, with care being taken to avoid generating excessive heating (localized
temperature >150F or >66C), as this can affect the inspection coil impedance or inspection
material properties, (both of which will inhibit examination).
The ferric oxide scale removal is somewhat more difficult and critical to the examination results
because its presence will result in a high amplitude eddy current response. Grinding methods
4-4
Inspection Decision
using standard or abrasive impregnated rubber wheels (e.g., Scotch Brite), sandblasting, and
needle guns will all deliver acceptable results. Irrespective of method, the removal should be
complete and the surface finish uniform throughout the inspection region.
Single, absolute, pancake coils which have a small effective diameter (approximately 0.5 to 0.75
inch or 13 to 19 mm) have demonstrated the best results. The small coil size is important for
minimizing both lift-off and sampling area. Coils manufactured by Nortec were used for the
EPRI investigation. Similar coils can be obtained from most major eddy-current equipment
manufacturers. Experience with field-removed pipe samples has shown that all welds could be
detected at an operating frequency of 20 kHz, but that the optimum operating frequency for
phase discrimination can range from 20 to 750 kHz.
Phase analysis, scope displaytype instruments that allow suppression of undesirable variables
(e.g., lift-off), and increased dynamic range in the area of interest are best suited for
examinations of this kind. Instruments manufactured by Dunegan, Nortec, and Zetec have been
used successfully.
Due to the previously mentioned normalization of the weld and base metal, representative
calibration standards will, in most cases, not be available. Customarily, previously removed
samples or samples of the same materials could be used as calibration standards. However,
samples of this kind would not have been subjected to the same environment and subsequent
material variation as the pipe in question. Therefore, unless adequate calibration standards can
be obtained, it will be necessary to calibrate directly on the pipe to be examined.
As the coil is placed on the prepared surface of the pipe, the instrument should be adjusted such
that the signal deflection (amplitude) from lift-off is suppressed, and the signal deflection
changes from changes in conductivity and permeability (phase) as the probe is scanned along the
prepared surface is enhanced. This is accomplished by adjusting the voltage to the appropriate
coordinate of the display. Instrument gain should be adjusted such that the signal is maintained
on screen (on-scale) while scanning in the prepared area around the circumference of the pipe.
The location of the seam weld will be indicated by a change in signal phase. If exact material
properties are not known, the direction of the phase shift cannot be predetermined. As the coil is
passed over the weld location, the signal phase will shift at the transition and hold as the coil
passes over the weld then return to the original phase angle. When a suspect area is located, the
probe should be incremented along the expected weld axis and scanned again in the
circumferential direction. A systematic repeat of the phase shift pattern in the same
circumferential position along the longitudinal axis of the pipe would indicate the presence and
location of the weld.
At this time, the inspection frequency which gives the maximum separation in phase angle
between the base metal and the suspected weld should be determined. In addition, a larger
surface area along the longitudinal axis of the pipe in the suspect circumferential location should
be prepared for inspection. Inspection should continue along the longitudinal axis of the pipe to
insure continuity of the phase shift pattern and the optimized frequency should allow more
accurate identification of weld position.
4-5
Inspection Decision
Some confusion may arise due to localized areas of permeability variations, which exhibit phase
shifts of a similar angle as the weld material. However, discrimination of these variations is
possible since they will not reproduce in a systematic pattern along the longitudinal axis of the
pipe.
Inspection History and Decision
The decision to inspect is based on inspection history and on the screening criteria outlined in the
details of the Roadmap, Step 4 (Figure 3-4a).
The prior inspection history is reviewed. Particularly critical to the evaluation is the question of
whether an inspection has been performed within the last 48 months of operation, and whether it
has been performed in accordance with the EPRI Guidelines procedure (see Table 1-7). If such
an inspection has been performed, then the results should be evaluated per Step 6 of this
Guidelines document (Figure 3-6a). If the inspection has not been performed within the last 48
months of operation, then a rupture life fraction expended screening procedure is used to
establish a need for near-term inspection.
LFE Calculation (Step 4.2 of Figure 3-4a)
The benchmarking exercise described in Section 2 provides a basis for use of the rupture life
fraction expended estimate as a screening criterion for whether a near-term inspection is
recommended. The HRH pipe failures all showed service lifetimes exceeding 20% of the ASTM
Minimum stress vs. Larson-Miller parameter curve prediction for a stress level given by the
mean-diameter hoop stress due to internal pressure (see Table 2-1; Plants S1, S2, M1, M2).
Similarly, the two main steam seam-welded pipe failures (MS2 and G1 in Table 2-1) showed
service lives in excess of 10% of the ASTM Minimum curve (13% for MS2 and 24% for G1).
Further, the ex-service seam weldment cross-weld creep rupture data have indicated that new
weldment rupture times estimated from laboratory tests may be described by the ASTM
Minimum curve (see Figures 1-8 and 1-9). These observations suggest that the use of a 10%
LFE as screening criterion, where LFE is the ratio of service exposure to total lifetime predicted
from the ASTM Minimum curve, is realistically conservative. While the HRH piping failure
experience suggests this criterion to be very conservative if applied to HRH piping, the criterion
has been developed with consideration of the widespread concern for seam-welded HRH piping
integrity, coupled with observations of cracking experience at LFE values not much greater than
10%.
The first step in the calculation process is the review of temperature-pressure operating history.
For the first estimate, it is generally sufficient to use the nominal operating pressure and to
tabulate the hours of operation at temperature increments of 25F (14C). In cases where records
are not available, an estimate of the service history can be made based on periods of similar
operational conditions. If this initial estimate of LFE is equal to, or greater than, the 10% LFE
screening criterion, then more rigorous calculations may be performed at smaller temperature
increments and actual operating pressure data. Note that these calculations do not include the
effects of load cycling. Also note that in case of bends and elbows, it is recommended that a
4-6
Inspection Decision
10% increment on the mean-diameter hoop stress be applied (see Section 1 for discussion on
intensification effects in bends, elbows, and similar fittings)
Figures 4-2 and 4-3 are the ASTM Stress vs. Larson-Miller Parameter curves for 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo
and 2-1/4Cr1Mo, respectively. The figures show the Mean and the Minimum curves for each
steel. The Minimum curves, in each case, are used for calculation of the LFE. The user is
directed to ASTM Data Series DS50 [16] and DS6S2 [17] for precise descriptions of these
curves.
The applied stress, , is approximated by the mean-diameter hoop stress due to pressure, P, by:
PR
= (4-1)
t
where: R is the mean radius of pipe,

t is the pipe wall thickness.
The ASTM Minimum property curve life, L*, is obtained by:
LMP* = T (20+log10L*) (4-2)
4-7
Inspection Decision
where LMP* is read off of the appropriate curve of Figure 4-2 or 4-3
(4-2 for 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo; 4-3 for 2-1/4Cr1Mo), and T is the operating temperature in
R (F + 460). The LFE is then estimated by:
texp
LFE = (4-3)
L*
where texp is the service exposure time.
The above LFE calculation should be made for each steady-state cycle of operation, LFEi, and
the total LFE estimated by:
(Total) LFE = LFE

i
i (4-4)
Sample Problem. A 2-1/4Cr1Mo seam-welded HRH pipe spool piece of 30 inches (800 mm)
OD x 1.25 inches (31.8 mm) wall, has been in service under steam conditions of 1000F (540C)
and 600 psig (41 bar) for 60,000 hours, and 1025F (550C) and 550 psig (38 bar) for 25,000
hours.
The mean radius, R = 14.375 inches (365.12 mm), wall thickness, t = 1.25 inches (31.8 mm),
texp = 85,000 hours
Two steady-state cycles are identified:
(1) 1000F (T1 = 1460R = 810K), 600 psig (P1), texp1 = 60,000 hours, and
(2) 1025F (T2 = 1485R = 825K), 550 psig (P2), texp2 = 25,000 hours
For cycle (1):
P1 R (600)(14.375)
Mean-diameter hoop stress, 1 = = = 6.9 ksi (48 MPa)
t 1.25
From the Minimum curve of Figure 4-3, for 6.9 ksi (48 MPa), LMP1* = 37,800 for R (21,000
for K)
LMP1*
Therefore, log10L1* = - 20, or L1* = 776,982 hours,
T1
t exp1 60,000
Or LFE1 = = = 0.0772 = 7.72%.
L1 * 776,982
4-8
Inspection Decision
Similarly, calculations for cycle (2) give:
P2 R (550)(14.375)
Mean-diameter hoop stress, 2 = = = 6.325 ksi (43.6 MPa)
t 1.25
From the Minimum curve of Figure 4-3, for 6.325 ksi (43.6 MPa), LMP2* = 38,100 (21,200 for
K)
LMP2*
Therefore, log10L2* = - 20, or L2* = 453,488 hour,
T2
t exp2 25,000
Or LFE2 = = = 0.0551 = 5.51%.
L2* 453,488
Therefore, the total LFE for the screening criterion is given by LFE1 + LFE2 = 13.23%.
Per the procedure of Step 4.2 (Figure 3-4a), the pipe of this example warrants a near-term
inspection.
Inspection Decision
The initial inspection decision is based simply on the 10% LFE screening criterion where an
EPRI Guidelines inspection has not been performed within the last 48 months. Experience
indicates that the 10% LFE criterion warranting a near-term inspection can be very conservative,
but has been designed to favor near-term inspection in keeping with addressing the widespread
and general concern for the integrity of seam-welded high-energy piping. The near-term
inspection recommendation includes an EPRI inspection to be performed within one year from
this evaluation.
4-9
Inspection Decision
Figure 4-2
Stress-Larson-Miller parameter curves for 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo steel; note the ASTM Mean and
Minimum curves, the latter being used for the screening procedure.
4-10
Inspection Decision
Figure 4-3
Stress-Larson-Miller parameter curves for 2-1/4Cr1Mo steel; note the ASTM Mean and
Minimum curves, the latter being used for the screening procedure.
4-11
5
INSPECTION METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This section describes the inspection methodologies applicable to nondestructive evaluation of

seam-welded steam piping. The scope pertains to Step 5 of the Roadmap, as highlighted in
Figure 5-1. The recommended approach is to perform, as a minimum, a conventional ultrasonic
examination of the seam welds in accordance with Appendix B. A visual examination should be
conducted prior to the ultrasonic examination to identify any obvious defects such as cracks or
evidence of leakage. Acoustic emission testing may also be conducted in advance of ultrasonic
testing to focus inspection efforts or to possibly suggest that complete insulation removal and UT
inspection are not necessary.
The Guidelines approach presented in this document for managing piping integrity continues to
be cost-effective and technically adequate to deal with the predominant fusion line cracking
scenarios encountered in hot reheat piping. However, increasing awareness of other forms of
cracking, such as weld centerline cracking, Type IV cracking, and uniform fusion line cavitation
in some elbows, bends, and peaked pipes, has driven the need for incipient cavitation damage
detection [55]. As a result, more utilities are interested in using advanced ultrasonic techniques,
such as time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD) and linear phased array, for examination and
evaluation of seam-welded high-energy piping systems (See Appendices C and D).
In addition to acoustic emission and ultrasonic examinations, a magnetic particle surface

examination may be performed and microstructure replications taken at selected locations.
Another alternative, radiography, should be considered as a supplementary examination,
primarily for assisting in the evaluation and disposition of ultrasonic indications. Table 5-1
provides a basic description of each NDE method applicable to seam weld evaluation and
summarizes their major advantages and disadvantages.
This section reviews the essential variables of conventional ultrasonic examinations, stepping
through its progression from both the outside and inside surfaces, and the ultrasonic sizing
methodology for seam weld flaws. Also included are overviews of acoustic emission, TOFD,
and linear phased array techniques, as well as guidance on performing visual, magnetic particle,
and replication examinations.
Note that the sensitive EPRI procedures may produce many indications, although every
indication need not be evaluated per the Roadmap. Rather, a spool piece may be evaluated on
the basis of a select few indications representing the worst case (because remaining life
reduces with increasing crack size and proximity to the pipe surfaces). In contrast to the possible
perception that performing inspections in accordance with the Guidelines would result in
5-1
Inspection Methodology
examiners reporting hundreds of small reflectors (indications), the many utilities supported by
EPRI NDE Center activities (training and assistance; see Section 1) have consistently found no
substantial increase in the numbers of indications reported. Of course, utilities may choose other
inspection techniques (including less sensitive ones), but should consider their corresponding
detection and sizing capabilities when performing crack-growth assessments. In general,
advanced ultrasonic examination techniques provide reliable flaw detection and sizing results in
a more timely and consistent manner, and can overcome variability among NDE examiners [56].
5-2
Figure 5-1
Details of overall Roadmap highlighting the Inspection step.
5-3
Table 5-1
NDE Methods Applicable to Seam-Welded Piping
Method Applications Advantages Limitations Comments
Visual Surface discontinuities: Inexpensive; fast; Surface only; variable Should always be
cracks, porosity, slag, simple; real-time and poor resolution; eye the first method
misalignment, warpage, examination. Can fatigue; distractions. applied.
leaks. eliminate need for other Need good illumination.
methods.
Liquid Surface discontinuities: Inexpensive; easy to Surface only; not useful Messy; need
Penetrant cracks, porosity, apply; more sensitive on hot, dirty, painted, or good ventilation.
seams, laps, leaks. than visual alone; very rough surfaces.
applicable to most
materials; rapid;
portable.
Magnetic Surface and near- Low cost; fast; more Material must be Wet fluorescent
Particle surface discontinuities: sensitive to tight cracks ferromagnetic; surface technique very
cracks, voids, porosity, than Liquid Penetrant; must be clean; part may sensitive to small
inclusions, seams, laps. can do near-subsurface; need demagnetization; surface flaws.
portable. Will work on alignment of field is
some coated materials. important.
Ultrasonic Surface and deep Can give location and Couplant required; thin Need good
subsurface size of discontinuity; complex shapes are standards.
discontinuities: cracks, good sensitivity; inspect difficult; orientation of Automated digital
laminations, porosity, from one side; portable. discontinuity important; ultrasonic
lack of fusion, very operator- systems are
inclusions, thickness. dependent. highly developed.
Radiography Subsurface Provides permanent Not sensitive to Can be useful

discontinuities: cracks, record; can be portable; misaligned planar, method to assist
voids, inclusions, applicable to wide range crack-like flaws; with disposition of
thickness variation, lack of materials. radiation hazards; ultrasonic
of fusion, incomplete relatively expensive; indications.
penetration, corrosion, poor resolution on thick,
missing components, double-wall exposures
composition. for large diameter piping.
Acoustic Surface and subsurface Remote and continuous Contact with system; Current practice
Emission discontinuities: crack surveillance, location, may need many contact is to confirm
initiation and growth, severity, permanent points; complex indications by
leaks, boiling and record. Tests an entire interpretation; system other methods.
cavitation, phase vessel or system. Costs must be stressed; some Use is growing
changes. 5090% less than direct systems are too rapidly.
costs for UT complex.
examination. Piping
need not be taken out of
service.
Replication Surface microstructural Damage assessment Evaluates surface Can reveal extent
condition. and determination of condition only. of creep related
microstructure and damage only at
heat treatment the tested
verification without surface.
sectioning the
component.
5-4
Acoustic Emissions
Acoustic emissions (AE) is a passive monitoring technique, which listens for the high frequency
sounds of material failures (degradation). The detected energy comes from sound waves
generated by growing flaws. Any defect growing in the metal path can be detected and located
within a few inches on linear lengths of piping. This includes seam, closure, and hanger welds,
drains, vents, etc.
The sound waves can originate from a number of causes, such as dislocations, subcritical crack
growth, ductile tearing, fatigue crack growth, stress corrosion cracking, leaks, scale cracking,
frictional rubbing, and loose parts. The sound waves propagate radially throughout the structure,
attenuating with distance from the source. The waves change direction as they are reflected and
refracted at the boundaries of the structure. An AE sensor transforms their mechanical
displacement into an electrical signal.
AE signals can be of two types: burst or continuous. A burst emission is a discrete transient
signal associated with a specific event. Continuous emissions occur when burst emissions are so
frequent that signal features associated with an individual burst event can no longer be measured
(such as rise time, event duration, etc.). Continuous emissions are typically associated with
background noise, flow, and leaks. In order to distinguish between discrete events and
background noise, a voltage threshold level is set (Figure 5-1a) above which most signal
characteristics are measured. Figure 5-1b shows the major components of an AE system for
measuring and locating burst-type AE signals. Figure 5-1a identifies the associated signal
characteristics as they are commonly measured.
AE monitoring provides a screening of the entire pipe: base metal, pipe components, and welds.
One advantage of this method is that it does not require removal of all of the pipe insulation.
Removal of only one square foot (0.1 m2) of insulation every 1520 feet (4.66 m) along the
length of the line is required to install AE Waveguides. Waveguides are 0.25-inch (6.4-mm)
diameter stainless steel rods welded to the pipe surface, with a platform for mounting an AE
sensor at the other end. The ASME B31.1 code allows welding to occur either offline or during
plant operation.
In order for an energy release to generate AE, stress needs to be induced into the structure.
Testing is performed online, while the plant is operating, and does not require an outage to
perform testing. After initial setup and calibration of equipment, real-time monitoring can be
conducted remotely via modem communication. A typical 500-foot (150 m) piping system
requires one to two weeks of monitoring.
EPRI has been investigating advanced condition monitoring techniques, such as AE for
inspecting high-energy piping since 1986. Researchers have conducted several field
tests and reviewed information from AE field tests conducted by others. Findings and
conclusions helped establish a basic AE monitoring methodology [60].
5-5
AEs direct inspection costs are typically only 1030% of the costs for ultrasonic
inspection, and no plant downtime is required. This allows more frequent testing (say
every 3 years on average) than would be practicable or affordable with ultrasonic
inspection, and may increase the safety margin for early detection of problems.
5-6
Figure 5-1a
Typical Acoustic Emission Monitoring Configuration
5-7
Figure 5-1b
Acoustic Emission Signal Waveform and Signal Features
5-8
Conventional Ultrasonic Examination
The approach recommended by these Guidelines is to perform, as a minimum, an ultrasonic

examination of the seam welds in accordance with Appendix B. Prior to beginning the ultrasonic
shear wave examination for flaws, a zero-degree examination is performed to detect any laminar
reflectors that might interfere with the angle beam examination. It is also recommended that a
zero-degree profile of the inside weld surface be performed at several locations along the weld
length. This profile can be helpful when selecting optimum examination angles or attempting to
plot the precise location of a flaw indication.
Outside Surface Accessibility
To detect the various flaw types that have been encountered, it is necessary to perform a
thorough examination of the entire weldment. This entails the use of more than one ultrasonic
examination angle. Each beam angle should be used to scan completely over the weld outside
surface from both sides of the weld for the detection of fusion line flaws within the material (not
surface connected). The examination should be performed with a half-V path technique (i.e., not
bouncing the beam off the opposite surface) in order to provide the greatest sensitivity and less
beam redirection. The exception to this is that the 45-degree search unit may be bounced off the
opposite surface (full-V path) while searching for reflectors near the entry surface. This
technique may not identify all near surface flaws, but will complement the visual or magnetic
particle surface examinations.
As shown in Figure 5-2, those flaws open to the inside surface of the pipe may be detected with a
45-degree shear wave search unit, provided the contact surface weld reinforcement allows the
approaching beam to strike the opposite surface at the location of the flaw. An excessively wide
reinforcement may prevent correct positioning of the search unit, thereby prohibiting an
examination of the area of interest. It is, therefore, necessary to grind the weld crown smooth
enough for ultrasonic coupling.
Assuming that the examination is conducted from the outside surface of the pipe and
interferences related to the weld crown do not exist, flaws on the inside surface of the pipe may
be detected by conventional ultrasonic techniques with a 45-degree beam angle, applied at
increased sensitivity levels established on the proper calibration block as defined in Appendix B.
Those flaws (either fabrication- or service-induced) within the volume of the weldment, but not
connected to either the inside or outside surface, are also detectable with ultrasonic techniques,
but may require slight beam angle variations. They may be detectable with 45- or 60-degree
shear wave search units. Based on the results of the experiments described in Section 2, a 45-
degree shear wave search unit appeared appropriate for detection of side wall lack of fusion
flaws lying along the weld fusion line at an angle to the pipe radial (vertical) direction. A 60-
degree shear wave search unit appeared appropriate for the detection of vertical lack of
penetration at the root of the double-V weld, as exists with the vertical simulated lack of fusion
flaws. In each case, 45-degree shear for side wall lack of fusion, or 60-degree shear for vertical
incomplete penetration, the curvature of the pipe wall causes the beam to impinge
perpendicularly upon the planar face of the flaw as shown in Figure 5-3. Likewise, for service-
5-9
induced flaws such as the various levels of creep cracking detected along the weld fusion line
during the ultrasonic investigations described in Section 2, a 45- and 60-degree shear wave
search unit appear to be adequate for flaw detection. These investigations indicate that
microcracks as small as 0.030 inch (0.76 mm) in through-wall extent are detectable when the
appropriate ultrasonic techniques are employed.
Perpendicular incidence results in an indication with high signal-to-noise ratio, readily visible
and identifiable on the instrument cathode ray tube (CRT). For some pipe curvature and
thickness combinations, a 70-degree shear wave is necessary to detect vertical incomplete
penetration. Therefore, it is necessary to know the pipe dimensions and use a few mathematical
equations prior to the inspection in order to ensure that proper ultrasonic examination is
conducted for all flaw types, (i.e., the required angles such that all existing flaw types would be
detected). The equations are included in the examination procedure in Appendix B. Target
flaws with through-thickness dimensions of 0.1 and 0.25 inch (2 and 6.4 mm) have been used for
the laboratory investigations for qualification of the technique; it was capable of detecting all
flaws. These investigations, consistent with the reported sample data from the inspection survey
discussed in Section 2, indicate that vertical cracks as small as 0.100 inch (2.54 mm) in through-
wall extent are detectable when the appropriate techniques are used and perpendicular incidence
is achieved.
Flaws on the outside surface of the pipe should be detected with either a visual examination or a
magnetic particle examination, as full-V ultrasonic examination (i.e., bouncing the ultrasonic
beam off the inside surface and then searching for flaws near the outside surface) appears
unreliable. The geometric conditions involved at the inside surface may scatter the beam or
redirect it in a direction other than anticipated. Additionally, the longer beam paths reduce flaw
signal-to-noise levels and may lower the probability of detection.
5-10
Figure 5-2
Example of weld crown interference.
5-11
Figure 5-3
Examples of flaw detection angles.
5-12
Once the above examination angles have been determined and correctly used, there still remains
a volume of weldment which has not been examined by any NDE method. This volume lies just
below the examination contact surface and may extend down as far as midwall, depending upon
the shape of the external reinforcement of the weld crown. If it is possible to scan the search unit
completely over the weld crown, then this volume is reduced to only the amount masked by
search unit ring down (entry surface noise) or near field considerations.
Simply detecting a flaw is not the only problem associated with NDE of steam pipe welds. It is
just as important to correctly characterize and dismiss ultrasonic indications resulting from
nondetrimental geometrical conditions. Irregular surface conditions, such as inside or outside
weld crown roughness, could lead to false calls or incorrectly classifying a geometric condition
as a defect. The use of supplementary examinations, such as radiography or using a zero-degree
longitudinal wave search unit to aid in the recognition of inside surface reinforcements or other
geometrical conditions, may assist in this discrimination. Another aid in the confirmation of a
geometric indication may be the ability to receive a signal from the reflector in only one
direction, (i.e., not receiving a signal from the reflector with the search unit directed 180 degrees
from the original detection direction). Extreme care must be exercised because flaws that are not
perpendicular to the pipe wall typically produce much larger signals from one side than from the
other and, in fact, may not produce any signal from the one direction.
Inside Surface Accessibility
When the ultrasonic examination is conducted from the inside surface, there are some changes
required to the examination procedure. Outside surface-connected flaws are usually detectable
with conventionally applied ultrasonic examination techniques using 45-degree beam angles.
Those flaws (either fabrication- or service-induced) within the volume of the weldment, but not
connected to either the inside or outside surface, are also detectable with ultrasonic techniques,
but like outside surface examination, require slight variation. They may be detectable with 45-,
60-, or 70-degree shear wave search units, depending on the particular geometry of the pipe (wall
thickness or diameter). In each case, the curvature of the pipe wall should cause the beam to
impinge perpendicularly upon the planar face of the flaw. Perpendicular incidence results in an
indication with high signal-to-noise ratio, readily visible and identifiable on the instrument CRT.
For some pipe curvature/thickness combinations, a 70-degree shear wave is necessary. It is also
important to know the pipe dimensions and use a few mathematical equations prior to the
inspection in order to ensure that proper ultrasonic examination is conducted for each flaw type,
and then use the required angles such that all flaw types would be detected if they exist. The
equations which can be used are included in the examination procedure in Appendix B.
Flaws on the inside surface of the pipe should be detected with either a visual examination or a
magnetic particle examination, as full-V ultrasonic examinations (i.e., bouncing the ultrasonic
beam off the outside surface and then searching for flaws near the inside surface) appear
unreliable. The geometric conditions involved at the surface may scatter the beam or redirect it
other than anticipated. Additionally, the longer beam paths encountered are detrimental to flaw
signal-to-noise levels and may reduce the probability of detection.
5-13
Ultrasonic Flaw Sizing
Once a flaw has been detected, the ultrasonic techniques described in Appendix E should be used
to estimate the flaw size. Size information is vital in making a decision about the disposition of
the flawed component. If the flaw can be shown to be very small and close to the surface, then
perhaps the only necessary action would be to grind it out or repeat the size measurement
periodically during further service of the component, with repair or replacement only becoming
necessary if the flaw grows. The evaluation procedures provided in the Guidelines are to be used
to assist in flaw disposition (see Sections 3 and 6).
The flaws associated with seam-welded pipe have two major dimensions to be estimated
ultrasonically. One dimension is the flaw length, which is the extent of the flaw in the direction
parallel to the pipe axial direction. The other important dimension is the flaw height, which is
the extent of the flaw in the through-wall or radial direction.
Flaw length measurement is performed using the same technique that was used to detect the
flaw. Once the flaw is detected, the search unit is moved parallel to the pipe axis, maintaining
the flaw signal on the instrument screen, until the signal disappears into the ambient noise. The
position of the center of the search unit is marked, denoting one endpoint of the flaw indication.
The process is repeated in the opposite direction to locate the other endpoint. The separation
between these two points represents the length of the flaw. As stated earlier, while the
recommended inspection procedure provides information on the length extent of an indication,
no quantitative guidance is offered for use of this inspection result. The length dimension does
not help predict the through-thickness crack growth rate, and the length extension rate is
currently unpredictable (see Section 1 under Fracture Toughness and Leak-Before-Break).
However, recognizing the increased risk of rupture as the crack length increases, the Guidelines
suggest comparing indication length against critical crack length computed on a pipe-specific
basis (design/operation) using the lower-bound toughness, JIc = 170 in-lb/in2 (30 kJ/m2), and
Tearing Modulus, T = 95, for a through-wall crack. Note that the HRH pipes studied (Table 1-1a
and 1-2) gave lower-bound critical crack lengths in the range of 9.528 inches (240710 mm).
Flaw height (depth) measurement, directly relevant to the evaluation procedure, is more
complex. Modern sizing techniques, based on detecting ultrasonic signals returned from the
extremities of the flaw and referred to as tip diffraction, are required. Examples of this are
shown in Figure 5-4. The time of flight of such a signal, considered in conjunction with
knowledge of the angle of the ultrasonic beam, indicates the actual through-wall position of the
tip of the flaw. In the case of a surface-connected flaw, only one such measurement is needed.
If the flaw is embedded in the pipe wall, the measurement would be performed separately for the
top and bottom extremities of the flaw. These flaw-extremity signals are generated via the
diffraction phenomenon of wave interactions with discontinuities in the propagation medium.
When an ultrasonic beam strikes a planar discontinuity such as a crack, with part of the beam
impinging on the edge of the planar flaw, two types of interaction take place. As shown in
Figure 5-5, the part of the beam which strikes the flaw face is reflected (the interaction
mechanism employed in initial detection of the flaw and in length measurement). Diffraction
occurs at the tip of the discontinuity. The flaw edge acts as a line source generating a cylindrical
wave which radiates in all directions. One component of this cylindrical wave will be properly
oriented to return to the search unit and is detected as a separate, low-amplitude signal, known as
5-14
a satellite pulse. The time of flight of this satellite pulse signal is directly related to the through-
wall position of the flaw tip. For an embedded flaw, the top and bottom edges of the planar flaw
will each produce such a signal, thereby delineating the through-wall extent of the flaw. There
may be situations where a unique flaw tip signal cannot be identified, such as for angled flaws
that do not intersect a surface. When a unique tip-diffracted signal cannot be identified, the flaw
height should be measured by observing where the signal starts to drop rapidly, indicating that
the tip has passed through the central part of the ultrasonic beam [48].
During the investigation of the failed reheat pipe sections (see Section 2), flaw height
measurements made using the sizing techniques described above resulted in achieving an RMS
error of 0.077 inch (2.0 mm) and demonstrated that accurate sizing can be achieved on service-
induced seam weld flaws when appropriate methods are used.
5-15
Figure 5-4
Tip diffraction sizing techniques.
5-16
Figure 5-5
Generation of satellite pulse from crack.
5-17
There are several variables that can affect the accuracy of individual sizing results. The most
obvious and probably the most significant is the ability of the operator to use diffraction
techniques. The importance of using trained and qualified personnel to perform flaw height
measurements cannot be overstated. Other circumstances that could degrade flaw sizing
accuracy might include, among others, search unit access restrictions associated with the joint
configuration and the presence of small reflectors unrelated to the flaw, such as weld porosity.
Access restrictions can preclude detection of the diffraction signals. Small unrelated reflectors
located close to the flaw of interest could also produce low-amplitude signals that are difficult to
distinguish from the flaws diffraction responses. A recommended sample sizing procedure is
contained in Appendix E. As part of the inspection, pipe spool piece ultrasonic wall thickness
measurements are made (see Appendix B). Note that these measurements are subsequently used
in the remaining life calculations.
Specialized Ultrasonic Equipment and Techniques
The use of automated ultrasonic imaging systems and higher test sensitivities may improve the
detection threshold for service-induced damage to seam welds [49]. Many data acquisition and
analysis systems have been downsized to permit greater portability and a variety of inspection
devices (scanners) are available. The digitized data is commonly stored on optical or magnetic
disks and is easily retrieved later for analysis. Data can be displayed as various color-coded A-,
B-, and C-scans and depending on the particular system, the threshold levels can be changed for
the produced images. Color coding of the images can be used to indicate either amplitude or
time-of-flight into the material.
As with the manual technique, most automated ultrasonic imaging systems will produce the
typical A-scan presentation that shows the time of arrival and amplitude of ultrasonic signals. In
addition, several orthogonal views are available on most ultrasonic imaging systems including B-
, C-, B-, and D-scan views. Figure 5-6 shows these additional orthogonal views. Ultrasonic B-
scan images are developed by stacking the individual A-scan waveforms in a two-dimensional
plane, where one of the dimensions represents the scan direction and the other dimension
represents wave travel time or material depth along the beam axis. The B-scan provides a cross-
sectional view of the part, in this case with the cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the
examination surface and containing the pipe axis. This view is excellent for observing the echo
dynamics or target motion associated with the dynamic interaction of the sound field with a
reflector due to transducer motion. A C-scan is made up of many scan lines and it represents the
top or plan view of the component. The C-scan shows the position of the reflectors relative to
the circumferential and axial dimensions of the pipe but not the radial or depth dimension. The
end view image (cross-sectional view perpendicular to B-scan images, such as, B-scan or D-
scan) provides supplementary information.
5-18
Figure 5-6
Various orthogonal views available on most imaging systems.
5-19
Typically, A-scans can be displayed in radio frequency (RF) or rectified (full-wave or half-wave)
presentation. The B- and C-scans do not contain any information that is not available in the
fundamental A-scans. However, they do allow processing, collating, and viewing large amounts
of data in ways that enhance the examiners ability to detect, size, and characterize flaw and
nonflaw ultrasonic responses.
Advanced Ultrasonic Examination
In December 2000, EPRI published report 1000564, Guidelines for Advanced Ultrasonic
Examination of Seam-Welded High Energy Piping, which provides guidance on effective and
consistent application of TOFD and linear phased array techniques. The report summarizes the
results of investigations performed on laboratory and field-removed samples and includes
examination procedures designed to identify creep damage at various locations in the seam weld.
A summary of each technique, excerpted from the report, follows.
Time-of-Flight Diffraction
TOFD detects and sizes flaws based on analyzing the arrival time of diffracted sound waves
emitted from a flaws extremities (that is, crack tip) as illustrated in Figure 5-7a. Among the
major benefits of TOFD are its speed of operation, ease of application, reliable detection
capabilities, and accuracy of sizing [57].
Investigations of TOFD suitability for seam-welded high-energy piping examinations were

conducted at EPRIs NDE Center using a MICROPLUS (+) digital ultrasonic system as shown
in Figure 5-7b. A manually manipulated single-axis scanner was employed and equipped with
an optical encoder and tracking wheel to correlate positional references. The scanner can be
quickly assembled, modified, or altered to accommodate various data collection systems. The
system and its associated software was used during the development of EPRIs Guidelines for
Advanced Ultrasonic Examination of Seam-Welded High Energy Piping.
5-20
Figure 5-7a
Typical Probe Arrangement and Ultrasonic Wave Paths
5-21
Figure 5-7b
MICROPLUS (+) Digital Ultrasonic System
5-22
The TOFD method employs two angled L-wave transducers arranged symmetrically opposite
each other, straddling the weld. The transducers are located on the parent material, clear of the
weld crown, facing each other. One transducer acts as transmitter and the other as receiver. The
transducer and pulser/amplifier characteristics are selected to generate as broad a distribution of
energy as possible over the weld body, heat-affected zone, and adjacent parent material.
Data Acquisition and Analysis
Because the technique requires only a single-motion axis (that is, along the weld), data
acquisition requires only a simple manual scanner that can be set up and operated quickly. The
scanner incorporates a position encoder that records the position along the weld and enables the
assembly of digital images in real time. Analysis can be performed immediately from the digital
images, and data are available for additional post-examination reviews. Scan/display speeds of
approximately 24 inches (61 cm) per minute are routinely achieved in the field. This capability
has led to an increased interest in the use of TOFD as a practical approach to examining seam-
welded, high-energy pipes.
Unlike most pulse-echo type techniques, accurate positioning of the TOFD probe array with
respect to the weld longitudinal centerline is not imperative. Because echo amplitude is not used
quantitatively for determination of flaw size, the normal amplitude-based calibrations associated
with conventional UT techniques are not required. Calibration is composed, in part, of
mathematically calculating the probe separation, setting the transducers accordingly, and
adjusting gain levels such that the scatter from the grain boundaries can be observed between the
lateral wave and direct L-wave responses.
The probe system generally has a large beam spread so most of the weld is insonified in one scan
pass. However, flaw type and location, weld joint geometry, and material thickness dictate to a
large degree the number of scans that should be performed to achieve full volume coverage
while ensuring that the flaws of interest are detected. When possible flaw indications have been
detected, further scans should be carried out to define the flaws more accurately.
Once a flaw has been detected, the values for the ultrasonic velocity in the material, probe delay,
and probe separation distance (PSD) are used to calculate flaw depths and through-wall heights.
Once the system is properly calibrated, the analysis software automatically calculates flaw depth
measurements.
Time-of-flight accuracy, resolution, and other key parameters are normally established and
limited to within the ranges dictated by the calculated PSD. However, improvement may be
obtained in the lateral and direct L-wave signal cycles and time-of-flight accuracy by altering the
calculated PSD to an optimum setting. Further, when performing a D-scan, valuable information
relative to flaw classification and lateral position/weld side location may be gleaned from the
data presented between the direct L-wave and the mode-converted waves. (See Appendix C for
further definition of scan and wave types.)
Discrimination and flaw classification are aided through the analysis of phase relationships,
signal shape and location, and relative amplitudes as compared with the lateral wave and back
5-23
wall responses. Volumetric flaws, such as porosity or inclusions, produce characteristic echo-
dynamic patterns that are immediately identifiable in the TOFD B-scan image. Any flaw that is
a point source in its dimension parallel to the D-scan direction will give rise to a parabolic echo-
dynamic shape with minimal length and through-wall height. Conversely, any flaw that has
length parallel to the D-scan direction will produce a continuous indication pattern over its full
length. Figure 5-7c is an example of a D-scan image containing various flaw types, including
radial-stacked side-drilled holes (SDH), linear, inside surface-connected slots (lack of fusion and
slag inclusion line), an electro-deposition notch (EDN), and point sources.
An embedded (that is, midwall crack) produces unique response patterns in that both tips are
detected and displayed simultaneously. These can be identified immediately by amplitude and
signal response comparisons as well as phase reversal of the top and bottom tips. When used
with the appropriate imaging technology, TOFD generates images of the forward-scattered
ultrasonic energy from grain boundaries. This scattered energy manifests itself as mottling in the
B-scan image. Differences in metallurgical structure give rise to corresponding changes in the
mottling pattern. Such differences may be attributable to localized repair or heat treatment
locations as well as flaws (voids and cracks) related to in-service conditions.
5-24
Figure 5-7c
D-Scan Image of Various Flaw 50%
5-25
Evaluation Summary
Laboratory investigations included efforts to evaluate flaw detection and sizing capabilities using
specimens containing cracks of known sizes located at the inside surface, outside surface, and
midwall regions of the weld. The specimens were made of two pipe sizes: (1) an 18-inch (460-
mm) outside diameter, 0.75-inch (19-mm) thick, and (2) a 30-inch (800-mm) outside diameter,
1.57-inch (39.9-mm) thick.
Various probe combinations using different diameters, frequencies, and wedge angles, similar to
those currently in field application, were used to examine the specimens. The results showed
that good detection and sizing results could be obtained for a range of pipe sizes and flaw
locations using different probe combinations and methods of determining PSDs. Although
sizing accuracy varied somewhat for different setups, the best overall setup on each specimen
size resulted in a variance of the measured sizes for length and depth from the actual sizes of less
than 2%.
Additional investigations were performed to evaluate the capability of TOFD to detect small
(0.050-inch [1.3-mm]) notches unfavorably located at the weld toe on the inside and outside
surfaces adjacent to the fusion line. Results of this evaluation showed that detection could be
achieved for the inside surface notch in the two specimen sizes. However, due to the pronounced
weld crown reinforcement on the thicker specimen, detection of the outside surface notch could
only be achieved for the 18-inch (460-mm) specimen.
Linear Phased Array
As described in report 1000564, Guidelines for Advanced Ultrasonic Examination of Seam-

Welded High Energy Piping (December 2000), EPRI investigated phased array ultrasonic
technology for examining seam-welded high-energy piping. The investigations were performed
using a portable TOMOSCAN system upgraded to include a phased array option (i.e.,
examination with various beam angles and focal lengths using a single array of transducers).
An array is a type of ultrasonic transducer that has been segmented into many individual,
parallel elements. Each of these array elements is connected to a separate pulser, receiver, and
analog-to-digital converter. The system operator can control the time at which each element is
pulsed and the time delay applied to the response received by each element. After application of
the reception delays, the elements received waveforms are summed to form a single, resultant
waveform [58]. Beam focusing and angle control result from the application of precisely
controlled, nonlinear delays to both the emission pulse and the received pulse for each element in
an array of transducers. By controlling the timing, or phase, of each elements excitation and
reception, a single array probe can be made to simulate many different conventional probes.
Without moving the probe, sound beams of many angles can be generated sequentially,
inspecting a large portion of the components cross-section.
In this manner, a slice of a component may be scanned electronically in milliseconds instead of

being scanned mechanically in a few seconds. Instead of the slow, two-dimensional scan pattern
necessary to scan a weld joint using conventional methods, the probe may simply be swept along
5-26
the length of the weld one or more times at different array setback positions to achieve similar
results [56]. The ability to use this line scan procedure versus the more conventional raster scan
can reduce scan times by at least an order of magnitude.
Data Acquisition and Analysis
A typical phased array setup includes a portable TOMOSCAN, a phased array unit, a
piezoelectric probe driver (also called a piezodriver), an automated scanning device, and an
associated driving unit. The console portion of the TOMOSCAN is used during analysis and
acquisition and displays various image presentations, such as A-, B-, and C-scans. The operator
must choose an optimal amplification setting during the calibration procedure in order to
guarantee that the examination is not limited by problems associated with the signal-to-noise
ratio or with saturation.
As discussed, the line scan procedure using a phased array probe permits the inspection of a
cross-sectional area of interest with a minimum number of probe positions [59]. Additional
probe positions are sometimes added however to improve coverage or in an attempt to improve
the accuracy of flaw sizing. Figure 5-7d shows the coverage on a typical double-V seam weld
that is being examined using a phased array probe and a line scan technique. As shown in Figure
5-7d, the multiple beam angles effectively interrogate the entire fusion line region of the seam
weld. By employing a large number of angles, it is easy to visualize the potential improvements
that can be realized in both speed and flaw detection/sizing capabilities.
5-27
Types
Figure 5-7d
Phased Array Coverage of a Seam Weld From Two Probe Positions
5-28
In addition to improved coverage, the automated phased array technique offers a much simpler
means of analyzing the resultant data. Even with automated ultrasonic examination techniques,
the analysis of conventional ultrasonic data generally takes longer than the acquisition of the
data, especially if many flaws are detected. Using phased array technology, the data analysis
process tends to be simpler, faster, and more reliable than conventional data analysis. By
reviewing the B-scan images of the different beam angles, a flaw can be very clearly identified.
Figure 5-7e shows an example of a B-scan presentation of a crack connected to the inside surface
at the fusion line of the weld.
Another technique that can be useful in analyzing phased array data is commonly referred to as
the sector scan. Figure 5-7f depicts how this technique can be used. The figure shows an actual
sector scan response of a crack connected to the inside surface at the fusion line of the weld. The
weld configuration has been added to more clearly show how the image can be used during
analysis. Once the analyst understands the configuration of a seam weld, the task is reduced to
noting the presence of crack reflections and measuring the crack depth by noting the beam angle
and probe position associated with the extremity of the crack.
Detailed information on how the B-scan and sector scan images are used to assist in flaw sizing
is provided in the EPRI report, Guidelines for Advanced Ultrasonic Examination of Seam-
Welded High Energy Piping. If subsequent field trials of the phased array technology indicate
that improvements in detection and sizing capabilities are needed, it is still possible to apply the
phased array technique using beam focusing (see Figure 5-7g). The central elements of the
transducer array can be fired with longer delays compared with those of the lateral elements.
This process results in each of the individual wave fronts arriving in phase at a desired focal
point. The resulting ultrasonic beam will be effectively focused at that point. The goal of using
focused beams is to increase sensitivity to smaller areas of incipient creep damage and to
improve the sizing capability of the phased array techniques.
5-29
Figure 5-7e
B-Scan Image of a Crack Connected to the Inside Surface
5-30
Figure 5-7f
Sector Scan Image of a Crack Connected to the Inside Surface at a Weld Fusion Line
5-31
Figure 5-8
Potential for Focusing Using Phased Array Technology
5-32
Evaluation Summary
EPRI experiments to evaluate the merits of phased array technology for seam-welded piping
examination included an assessment of the accuracy of flaw sizing techniques (i.e., flaw length
and through-wall extent). Results indicated that the line/sector scan technique provides excellent
detection capability for a range of flaw types, sizes, and locations. The sizing approach was
determined to provide a length sizing accuracy having a RMS error of 0.329 inch (8.36 mm) and
a through-wall extent accuracy having a RMS error of 0.068 inch (1.73 mm). Examination of a
field-removed steam pipe revealed indications at the weld centerline that, based on metallurgical
investigations, were later determined to be related to creep damage.
Computer-Aided Plotting Methods
Computer-aided plotting methods can be used to assist the examiner in accurately locating and
characterizing ultrasonic responses during seam weld inspections. Using manual plotting
methods for flaw evaluation, it is almost impossible for the examiner to accurately estimate the
effect of many possible variables (e.g., surface contour, beam angle, mode conversion, etc.) on
the results of the plot. Figure 5-8 demonstrates the effect of one of these variables: surface
contour. Software programs such as EPRIs RAYTRACE [50] use input values for component
surface contours and search unit parameters to create scaled plots of the component and
ultrasonic beam path models.
The RAYTRACE program permits reflections and mode conversions from irregular surface
geometries to be accurately modeled. Interactive program features include selection from
several transducers; display of depth, metal path, time-of-flight, and spatial coordinates of
operator-selected points on the plotted beam paths; display of spatial coordinates of operator-
selected points anywhere in the weldment, whether on a beam path or not; modification of inside
or outside surfaces to see the effect on the plot; flexible operator control over selection of beams
for display; and display of beam paths from several transducer positions simultaneously.
RAYTRACE operates on standard PCs and can normally be learned quickly by inspection
personnel. Other more portable and simpler plotting aids are available to give the examiner an
advantage over manual plotting techniques.
Surface Examination Methods
Of the various types of flaws expected to occur in seam-welded pipe, those that are surface-
connected are the least difficult to detect with NDE. Assuming outside surface accessibility,
flaws on the outside surface of the pipe may be detected with either a visual examination or a
magnetic particle examination. In addition, another NDE surface examination technique that has
been used quite extensively on seam-welded piping is surface/microstructure replication.
Replication is capable of detecting creep damage and slag inclusions at the surface. Because the
component is not destroyed and only one surface is accessible, however, damage detection is
limited to that surface, typically the outside surface of the component.
5-33
Visual Examination
The importance of performing a good visual examination of the seam-welded piping cannot be
over emphasized. Prior to beginning other NDE on steam piping, a walkdown of the hot lines is
conducted while the unit is on-line. The insulation is then removed and a second walkdown is
conducted after the lines have cooled. During these walkdowns, check for evidence of broken,
topped-out, or bottomed-out hangers, in addition to any obvious defects such as cracks or steam
leaks.
The presence of broken, topped-out, or bottomed-out hangers may indicate a trouble area due to
inadequate support; careful NDE should be performed near those locations. This may also be a
prime location to perform surface replication.
If any abnormal conditions are identified, the presence, location, probable cause, and disposition
should be documented and placed in a baseline data file. This file can then be reviewed
periodically to help establish inspection intervals and extent of inspection.
Magnetic Particle Examination
Provided the examination surface is sufficiently smooth, a magnetic particle examination may be
performed with either dry powder or wet fluorescent methods. With either method, however, it
is only possible to detect those flaws open to the surface. The increased sensitivity associated
with the wet fluorescent method is worth the additional inconveniences associated with
darkening the area.
A wet fluorescent magnetic particle examination should be performed on a cleaned surface. The
surface should be free of oil, sand, rust, grease, slag, dirt, loose scale, or any other extraneous
material which could mask indications.
The examination should be conducted with an ac electromagnetic yoke with a minimum lifting
power of 10 pounds (4.5 kg). The magnetizing yoke is applied twice in each examination area.
The second application is conducted with the lines of magnetic flux approximately at right angles
to those used in the first application. Overlap should be sufficient to ensure the entire
examination area is covered. All examinations are conducted using the Continuous Method;
meaning, the magnetizing current remains on continuously during application of the magnetic
suspension medium, while the excess is being drained, and during the observation. After
draining the excess particle suspension, the area being examined should be observed for
indications of discontinuities while the fluorescent lamp is directed from various angles so that
the pipe is illuminated over the entire surface being examined.
5-34
Figure 5-9
Example of computer aided plotting techniques using the EPRI RAYTRACE program.
5-35
Replication
A replica is essentially a fingerprint of the surface under examination and can be used to detect
cracking, creep cavitation, porosity, inclusions, and other similar defects when they are on the
surface. Extensive, indiscriminate replication can be very expensive and time consuming. The
selection of locations where surface replication should be performed is primarily based upon the
results of NDE analysis and used as a supplement to the NDE. Replication should be performed
in the areas where flaws were detected by ultrasonic or other surface examination techniques. In
the event that no indications were detected by the NDE methods, it may still be desirable to
perform a carefully selected number of replications. Potential sites for these include bends,
elbows, section transitions (if any), areas adjacent to supports, intersections between longitudinal
and girth welds, and locations with a history of prior weld repair. At welds, the locations of the
replicas should be chosen to sample the weld metal, heat-affected zone (HAZ), the fusion line,
and the transition between the HAZ and the base metal. In addition to the above locations, a
random sampling at the weld-tobase metal fusion line along the weld may also be necessary to
detect microcracks, slag content, sulfide segregation, and other metallurgical inhomogeneities.
Replication is capable of detecting creep damage and slag inclusions at the surface. Feature
details obtained with the plastic replication technique have been shown to be similar to those
obtained from a metallographic mount and the resolution is approximately 0.004 mils (0.1
micron). Replica results alone are generally insufficient to enable disposition of the component.
If high-density slag inclusions are present, their distribution in the through thickness direction
has to be ascertained by sample removal. If creep damage is present, the overall evaluation
should include actual flaws detected by NDE and possible presence of buried flaws in the
through-thickness direction.
There are some significant disadvantages of the replication technique with respect to the
assessment of creep damage. Because the component is not destroyed and only one surface is
accessible, the damage detection is limited to that surface, typically the outside surface of the
component. The lack of detectable creep damage on a replica does not preclude the possibility
of creep damage at some other location throughout the wall thickness. Similarly, the technique
is limited by the location chosen for the replica. A lack of damage at the chosen location does
not necessarily mean that there is no damage several inches (about 10 cm) away from the site.
5-36
6
SERVICEABILITY ASSESSMENT
This section provides additional details on Steps 6 (Serviceability Evaluation) and 7

(Disposition) of the seam-welded high-energy piping evaluation Roadmap. Figure 6-1 highlights
the steps described.
The crack growth evaluations shown were conducted using the BLESS-Pipes module of the
BLESS code [34]. Appendix G describes how to use BLESS (-Pipes) for crack growth. BLESS
(-Pipes) lets the user, via the Edit Menu, easily select a multiplier on the Ct parameter (numerical
entry in Analysis dialog box), and exclude consideration of primary creep (click on Exclude
Primary Creep option in Operating Data dialog box). Both operations are directly relevant to the
evaluation of seam-welded piping per these Guidelines. Other crack growth calculation codes
may be used with the material property inputs recommended herein, and with the same treatment
of cycling effects (creep-fatigue) as with BLESS. Note that, for the seam-welded piping
evaluation, the creep rate and crack growth parameters are the only material property
parameters required. Currently, failure is defined simply where the crack depth exceeds the
value where the crack-tip driver solution for Ct or C* is undefined (typically 7580% of the wall
[51]). The inaccuracy in the remaining life estimate as a result of the current approach is
insignificant for high-energy seam-welded pipe lifetime evaluation. For each crack growth
based evaluation, every attempt should be made to input the operating cycles as forecast, or to
input the previous cycle history where no changes are foreseen in operation.
As noted in earlier Sections 3 and 5, no quantitative guidance is offered for use of crack length.
The length dimension does not help predict the through-thickness crack growth rate, and the
length extension rate is unpredictable. However, recognizing the increased risk of rupture as the
crack length increases, the Guidelines suggests comparing indication length against critical crack
length computed on a pipe-specific basis using a lower-bound JIc = 170 in-lb/in2 (30 kJ/m2) and T
= 95 for a through-wall crack.
6-1
Serviceability Assessment
Figure 6-1
Roadmap for steam pipe evaluation highlighting steps involving serviceability evaluation
and disposition.
6-2
Note that the HRH pipes studied (Table 1-1a and 1-2) gave lower-bound critical crack lengths in
the range of 9.5-28 inches (240-710mm; see Section 1).
There are essentially two stages of evaluation. First, where the evaluation is based only on the
ultrasonic (UT) examination results, and second, where a more refined evaluation is conducted
by sample removal and examination. The UT examination results fall into three evaluation cases
(Figure 3-6):
Case 1: Conventional UT indication reliably located in weld metal interior.
Case 2: Conventional UT indication not reliably located in weld metal interior.
Case 3: No significant indications.
Evaluation of Ultrasonic Examination Results
Conventional UT Indication Reliably Located in Weld Metal Interior
In case of main steam piping, because the field cracking and failure experience suggests that the
indication could be from a weld centerline (fine-grain HAZ) crack having the potential to rapidly
propagate, any such indication is cause for sample removal and further evaluation. An indication
in case of HRH piping, however, may be evaluated via a crack growth analysis, using the UT-
measured pipe wall thickness and indication depth size conservatively estimated from the UT
response (see Figure 3-7). For this conservative size, a weld metal interior indication in an HRH
pipe seam weldment is evaluated as follows. In all cases, the creep rate constants are from Table
1-6 (BLESS default for Grade 11 [34] and ex-service cross-weld [4] for Grade 22). The crack
growth rate behavior is that of the Grades 11 and 22 weld metal with constants of Table 1-5.
Creep rate constants of Eq. (1-4) with in ksi and T in R:
For Grade 11 (1-1/4Cr1/2Mo), A = 3.712 E+11, n = 8.00, Q = 82,432. For BLESS 4.2 material
input parameters, these correspond to:
Secondary Creep Coeff (ref) {A1000 (median)} = 1.120 E-13
Secondary Creep Exponent {n (creep)} = 8.00
Q-prime = 82432
For Grade 22 (2-1/4Cr1Mo), A = 2.305 E+12, n = 6.93, Q = 84,043. For BLESS 4.2 material
6-3
Q-prime = 84043
Creep crack growth algorithm constants of Eq. (1-1) with da/dt in inch/hr and Ct or C* in ksi-
inch/hr (with 3 x Ct algorithm):
For both Grades 11 and 22, using BLESS 4.2
Creep Growth Coeff (median) {median value of C3 of Eq. (1-1)} = 4.674 E-02
Creep Growth Exponent {creep exp., q} = 0.737
3 entered in Ct multiplier box in Operating Data dialog under Edit Menu.
For other codes without the multiplier input capability, the creep growth coefficient must be set
equal to (median C3 = 4.674 E-02)(multiplier)q. For example, the multiplier of 3 for this
evaluation case would require setting creep coeff C (median) = 0.105 = (4.674 E-02)(3)0.737.
Conventional UT Indication Not Reliably Located in Weld Metal Interior
In case of main steam piping, because the field cracking and failure experience suggests that the
indication could be from a Type IV (fine-grain HAZ) crack having the potential to rapidly
propagate, any such indication is cause for sample removal and further evaluation. An indication
in case of HRH piping, however, may be evaluated via a crack growth analysis, using the UT-
measured pipe wall thickness and indication depth size conservatively estimated from the UT
response (see Figure 3-8). For this conservative size, an indication in an HRH pipe seam
weldment, that cannot be reliably concluded to be located in the weld metal interior, is evaluated
as follows. Creep rate and crack growth rate constants are as described above.
Q-prime = 82432
6-4
Q-prime = 84043
For both Grades 11 and 22, using BLESS 4.2,
Creep Growth Coeff (median) {median value of C3 of Eq. (1-1)} = 4.674 E-02
Creep Growth Exponent {creep exp., q} = 0.737
In each of the above cases, the remaining life estimate made by the BLESS crack growth
analysis is compared against the desired inspection interval (DII). If needed and possible, the
DII is decreased to make the remaining life estimate DII. In this instance, the reinspection
interval for the spool piece is set DII. Alternatively, further evaluation may be conducted via
sample removal at the location of maximum indication depth, or the spool piece replaced before
the estimated remaining life period.
No Significant Indications
This case is the baseline default case (Figure 3-11). The first step in the evaluation assumes a
default 0.05 inch (1.3 mm) midwall flaw. A crack growth analysis is performed using BLESS or
an equivalent crack growth analysis code for the operating steam conditions and cycles as
documented in Step 1. The analysis is conducted up to failure. The critical materials
properties to be used are as follows:
Q-prime = 82432
6-5
Q-prime = 84043
Creep Growth Coeff (median) {median value of C3 of Eq. (1-1)} = 4.674 E-02,
Creep Growth Exponent {creep exp., q} = 0.737,
Evaluation of Pipe Seam Weldment Samples
The evaluation applies to both HRH and main steam pipe seam weldments. The cases have been
summarized in Section 3 as:
Case A: Flaw in weld metal without cavitation (Figure 3-10a)
Case B: Cavitation in weld metal (Figure 3-10b)
Case C: Flaw at fusion line without cavitation (Figure 3-10c)
Case D: Flaw at fusion line with cavitation (Figure 3-10e)
Case E: Type IV or fine-grain weld centerline HAZ cavitation or cracking (Figure 3-10f)
Flaw in Weld Metal without Cavitation
A crack growth analysis is performed for the actual observed flaw depth and wall thickness using
BLESS or an equivalent crack growth analysis code, with the following materials input
parameters (see Figure 3-10a):
6-6
Q-prime = 82432
Q-prime = 84043
A remaining life estimate that is determined to be unacceptable by comparison with the DII
(estimate <DII), results in a requirement to replace the spool piece within the remaining life
estimate period, or to repair the affected area if the indication locations are localized enough
where repair can be economically performed.
Cavitation in Weld Metal
The Roadmap of Figure 3-10b summarizes the steps of the evaluation in this case. A macrocrack
(with cavitation) is cause for immediate spool piece replacement. Damage levels below the
macrocrack level (Level D) are evaluated conservatively (factor of 3 safety) per the cavitation
classification system approach of Eq. 2-2. For isolated cavities (Level A), the remaining life is
estimated as 0.4t (where t is the accumulated service life); for oriented cavities (Level B), the
remaining life is 0.18t; and for linked cavities/microcracks (Level C), the remaining life is
6-7
estimated as 0.06t. The estimates are a fraction of the lower-bound values based on the observed
scatter within each level of cavity classification (see Figures 2-6 and 2-7). The remaining life
estimate is compared against the DII. Where the remaining life is unacceptably low (<DII), the
spool piece is recommended for replacement within the estimated remaining life period.
Flaw at Fusion Line without Cavitation
In the absence of cavitation, the growth rate of a near-fusion-line flaw is predicted on the basis of
the near-fusion-line inclusion density (see Figure 3-10c). The inclusion content is
metallographically compared (in the metallographically polished and unetched condition) against
the classifications of Low, Average, and High inclusion density, as pictured in the sample
micrographs of Figure 3-10d. The crack growth analysis is performed using the actual observed
flaw depth and wall thickness, and the following properties.
Q-prime = 82432
Q-prime = 84043
inch/hr (with 2, 3, or 4 x Ct algorithm, depending upon low, average, or high inclusion
classification, respectively):
For the Low inclusion density classification, and for both Grades 11 and 22, using BLESS 4.2,
6-8
For the Average inclusion density classification, and for both Grades 11 and 22, using BLESS
4.2,
For the High inclusion density classification, and for both Grades 11 and 22, using BLESS 4.2,
(remaining life <DII) results in a requirement to replace the spool piece within the remaining life
estimate period. The repair option is not recommended.
Flaw at Fusion Line with Cavitation
Figure 3-10e summarizes the portion of the Roadmap for evaluating this case. The case where
the fusion line flaw is accompanied by extensive cavitation all along the fusion line throughout
the thickness is cause for immediate spool piece replacement. Where the cavitation is restricted
to the nearfusion line flaw-tip region, the remaining life estimate is carried out by performing a
crack growth analysis with BLESS, or equivalent code, using the actual observed flaw depth and
wall thickness, and the following materials properties.
6-9
Q-prime = 82432
For Grade 22 (2-1/4Cr1Mo), A = 2.305 E+12, n = 6.93, Q = 84,043. For BLESS 4.2 materials
Q-prime = 84043
(estimate <DII) results in a requirement to replace the spool piece within the remaining life
Type IV and Weld Centerline (Fine-Grain HAZ) Cavitation/Cracking
The presence of a macrocrack in the Type IV or fine-grain weld centerline zone is cause for
immediate spool piece replacement. This recommendation follows from the inability to predict
the progression of this form of damage, and from the field experience with main steam pipe seam
weldments. Where there is no macrocracking, the cavitation density is estimated for remaining
life per the approach of Cane and Aplin [47] as summarized by Eqs. (2-3) and (2-4), reproduced
below:
6-10
Life Fraction Expended (LF) = t/tr = [1 - (1 - N/Nr)] (6-1)
1 LF
The remaining life or life to crack initiation trem = top [ ] (6-2)
LF
top is the service duration, N is the cavity density, Nr is the cavity density at failure (a material
property = 4800 cavities/mm2 or approximately 3.10 x 106 cavities/in2, as reported by Cane and
Aplin for one U.S. plant), is a material property.
(estimate <DII) results in a requirement to replace the spool piece within the remaining life
No Flaws, No Cavitation
This sample condition is unlikely where the ultrasonic examination shows significant indications
(Cases 1 and 2). The evaluation procedure following this metallographic observation where an
indication has been noted is described in Figure 3-9. The default 0.05 inch (1 mm) crack growth
analysis is conducted, except that the flaw is positioned (for the analysis) at the wall depth
corresponding to the cusp or bottom of the U- or V-groove if applicable. This is shown as Step
7.15 in Figure 3-9. In cases where sample removal is called for in the absence of significant
indications (where the default crack growth remaining life is unacceptable relative to the DII),
the evaluation procedure follows a slightly different path. In this case (see Figure 3-11), a
weldment-specific rupture life evaluation is first conducted to determine if the LFE is less than,
or greater than, or equal to 10%. If further evaluation is triggered (weldment-specific
LFE 10%), then a second default crack growth analysis is performed in a manner identical to
that performed before sample removal (Step 7.19 of Figure 3-11), except that the default flaw
size is reduced to 0.030 inch (0.76 mm) (Step 7.26 of Figure 3-11) to take credit for the
metallographic observation.
Sample Removal and Testing
Sample Removal and Pipe Repair
Sample removal is conducted in order to perform a pipe weldment-specific metallurgical

evaluation of the condition to refine the remaining life estimate that has been made purely on the
basis of UT examination results. The evaluation requires a through-thickness metallographic
examination of the sample, and, in one case where no significant UT indications are evident but
the generic remaining life estimate is unacceptable, cross-weld stress rupture tests for
estimating the pipe weldment-specific LFE. These evaluations require that a through-thickness
sample containing the weldment be removed (plug sample). For Case 3 (no significant
indications), a plug sample of sufficient diameter to permit cross-weld rupture testing (at least 3
tests per sample, unless more than one sample is to be removed) is recommended; see
Appendix H for guidance on stress rupture testing. For other cases, where tests are not
6-11
recommended, the evaluations are based primarily on metallographic observations. In these

cases, the plug sample should be of sufficient diameter to capture the weld metal and all of the
HAZ (plug centered at weld, with diameter = OD weld cap width plus 0.5 inch (13 mm) on
either side of weld should generally suffice). Where no indications are evident, the sample
removal location should be selected to represent the highest stress region estimated by a piping
stress analysis and the appropriate walk-down information (see Section 4). Clamshell elbows
and bends are to be selected, if present. The user is referred to Reference 52 for guidance on
sample removal procedures.
Although the repair option is not generally recommended, a repair can be a near-term stop-gap
measure when spool piece replacement is not immediately available. Pipe repair may be
required following sample removal or as called for by the Guidelines (Case A: Flaw in weld
metal; Figure 3-10a). Threaded plug repairs are not recommended. Techniques used for repair
following plug, or core sample removal, have been summarized in Reference 53. Techniques
include the use of a 3-4 inch (80-100 mm) weldolet or a section of appropriate parent material
shaped to fit the area to be repaired. Factors to be considered in repair include assurance that all
of the damaged material has been removed, the influence of the repair HAZ on the future
overall weldment performance, and effective NDE to ensure that the repair was successful.
Periodic reinspection of the repaired area is advisable and can be cost-effectively accomplished
with the use of removable insulation in the areas of interest.
New techniques for weld repair of longitudinal seam weldments are being studied as an
alternative to replacement or increased inspection requirements [61]. EPRI has developed a flux-
cored arc welding (FCAW) temperbead process for clamshell elbows that will allow for rapid
deposition of the weld overlay and provide excellent heat-affected zone and weld properties. A
similar repair approach for seam welds in main steam and HRH piping is being developed.
Mechanical Testing
Seam weldment creep (rate) properties, stress rupture properties, and creep crack growth
properties are all key materials properties affecting the behavior of seam-welded high-energy
piping. Previous sections have reviewed the available data on ex-service seam weldments and
their significance relative to seam weldment life prediction. The Guidelines do not recommend
any pipe weldment-specific testing, except for the stress rupture test screening criterion in the
case where the generic life estimation shows an unacceptable remaining life with no evidence
(UT or sample) of flaws or creep damage. The recommendations have resulted from the
following observations:
No correlations could be drawn between the consumed life fraction and the creep rate
behavior of the ex-service weldments studied. The creep rate behavior, by itself, does not
provide an indication of the remaining life.
The stress rupture testbased life fraction expended could not be shown to have a quantitative
use for remaining life prediction, beyond its value as a screening criterion for deciding on the
need to inspect. Further, the stress rupture testbased LFE did not correlate with the creep
crack growth rate behavior.
6-12
The median laboratory creep crack growth behavior (da/dt-Ct relation) derived from the
entire sample of ex-service seam weldment test results analyzed (as empirically adjusted via
the benchmarking exercise) appears to provide a reasonable prediction of crack growth in all
of the cracked or failed HRH seam-welded pipe cases reviewed. The current state-of-
knowledge (relatively narrow scatterband in crack growth) does not indicate that significant
accuracy improvements are expected from weldment-specific laboratory crack growth tests.
Predictive accuracy may even decrease when relying on limited weldment-specific crack
growth data; this can occur because the remaining life prediction is largely controlled by
extrapolation of the behavior to well below the regime where the laboratory data are
generated.
Stress Rupture Testing. Test specimens should be taken such that the gage length includes
base metal, weld metal, and the fusion line. Inclusion of the cusp region material is desirable
because these regions are likely to contain the most damaged material. Two approaches are
offered: (1) the well-established isostress test approach; and (2) the single-specimen test, where
limited sample material is available.
The isostress method. In this method, constant load stress rupture tests are conducted at an initial
applied stress approximately equal to the steady-state operating hoop stress due to pressure. The
mean-diameter hoop stress due to pressure may be chosen as an approximation. At least three
tests are conducted, each at a unique temperature exceeding the operating temperature
(temperature-acceleration) to produce rupture in a time exceeding 500 hours. The remaining life,
trem, is estimated by extrapolation of the linear fit to the log t vs. T data (T = test temperature, t =
test time) to the steady-state operating temperature. The LFE is then estimated as top/(top + trem),
where top is the accumulated operating time.
Single-specimen test. Use of a single-specimen test approach is based on the assumption that the
isostress (stress equal to the operating stress), temperature-accelerated test produces a rupture
time with a Larson-Miller parameter (LMP) value characteristic of the material condition. The
assumption is equivalent to one that uses a linear log t - 1/T relation, consistent with the LMP
representation of the ASTM curves. This LMP value, LMP*, can then be used to estimate
remaining life by
LMP*
20
trem = 10 T (6-3)
where T is the operating temperature in R, and LMP* = Ttest[20+log10t] for Ttest = test
temperature in R and t = test rupture time.
The LFE is then estimated as top/(top + trem), where top is the accumulated operating time. Note
that, again, a desired test rupture time should exceed 500 hours.
Because the pipe weldment-specific rupture test results are only used as a screening criterion to
determine the need for reinspection and periodic monitoring, the inaccuracies associated with
specimen size effects are a secondary issue. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the
conservatism in the oxidation effect associated with tests in air (resulting in a decreasing
6-13
remaining life prediction for decreasing specimen size) be limited by selecting a minimum
specimen gage diameter of 0.2 inch (5 mm) for the laboratory rupture tests. The stress state
effects, which vary as a function of specimen size, are not yet fully understood, particularly in
case of weldments with significant inhomogeneity in the creep rates of various zones and the
complicating effect of weld geometry. The possible stress state effects are not quantifiable, and
have not been considered in the current recommendations. However, Appendix H summarizes
current understanding on these and other issues associated with using stress rupture tests to
predict service life.
6-14
7
CONCLUSIONS
Review and evaluation of the body of field and laboratory experience acquired since publication
of the original EPRI Guidelines for the Evaluation of Seam-Welded Steam Pipes in 1987 and the
update in 1996 has resulted in a better understanding of seam-welded high-energy piping
behavior. These Guidelines take advantage of demonstrated inspection capability and improved
crack growth predictability to provide an approach that is more accurate and less conservative
than previously offered. The recommended approach may be further improved as more
information on the mechanistic aspects of damage becomes available through EPRI or other
entities such as the Materials Properties Council. The key elements of these Guidelines are
summarized below:
The Guidelines-recommended seam-welded piping evaluation is essentially a flaw
tolerance approach designed on the basis of pipe inspectability and the prediction of crack
growth. The need for pipe inspection is defined on the basis of a generically computed life
fraction expended (LFE) screening criterion derived from field failure experience.
The conventional ultrasonic examination procedure recommended in 1987 by EPRI has been
found, in laboratory experiments, to be capable of detecting midwall microcrack damage
zones of depth as low as 0.03 inch (0.8 mm). Based on the laboratory results, and on the
typical ultrasound wavelength for the application (0.055 inch or 1.4 mm), which represents a
reliably detectable defect size, 0.05 inch (1 mm) is concluded to be a reliable detection
threshold for flaw size. This is the default size of flaw recommended for remaining life
predictions when the ultrasonic examination does not show evidence of significant
indications. The pipe serviceability assessment procedures recommended in the Guidelines
can be applied for alternative inspection procedures, provided the threshold detection size is
reliably known and that sizing estimates can be assuredly conservative. In such cases, the
appropriate changes in the crack assumptions should be made for the serviceability
calculations.
The available laboratory creep crack growth data on ex-service seam weldments have been
analyzed, and a procedure for empirically using the median growth rate behavior has been
offered for evaluation of seam-welded piping. The procedure was developed by
benchmarking the predictions against field experience (oxide-dated cracks and service
duration), resulting in an empirical multiplier (intensification) on the analytically estimated
crack growth driver, Ct or C*. The procedure gave reasonable predictions across-the-board
for nearly all of the field cracking and failure cases studied. In addition, the recommended
multiplier is consistent with analytical predictions of the intensification for expected weld to
base metal creep rate mismatch. This observation, coupled with the review of the relatively
narrow crack growth behavior scatterband and concern with the reliability of limited
weldment-specific data to accurately predict remaining life, indicates that weldment-specific
crack growth testing may provide only marginal improvement in predictability.
7-1
Conclusions
The crack growth calculation procedure recommends use of the EPRI BLESS code (current
version 4.2), or other equivalent crack growth calculation procedure such as that in PCPIPE,
with plant-specific operating cycles considered. Creep rate and crack growth properties for
specific materials are provided. Where material sample removal and examination is
indicated and conducted, guidance is provided on the materials properties to be used as a
function of local inclusion content, location of crack (interior weld metal versus fusion line),
presence of creep cavitation damage, etc.
The generally poor predictability of crack growth in fine-grain heat-affected zone (HAZ)
material (Type IV or at the weld centerline), and the field experience with this form of
damage in main steam pipe seam weldments, requires that sample removal be conducted
when a UT indication is noted in case of main steam pipe seam weldments.
Where samples are removed and metallographically examined for creep damage, the
Guidelines offer cavity classification and cavity densitybased remaining life estimation
procedures for weld metal and Type IV zones, respectively. In general, the observation of
macrocracking along with widespread cavitation is a condition that requires immediate spool
piece replacement.
Besides its use as a weldment-specific screening criterion triggering inspection and
periodic monitoring, conventional pipe weldment-specific stress rupture testing is concluded
to have limited quantitative value, and is not generally recommended. The conclusion
regarding the limited value of conventional rupture testing was arrived at following thorough
review of the available ex-service weldment data available in 1993. In these cases, the stress
rupture test-based life fraction expended could not be correlated with creep rate or crack
growth behavior. This aspect of the approach will be modified should alternative rupture test
methods, such as full-section-size cross-weld tests, be shown to provide quantitatively useful
indications of remaining lifetime.
The evaluation procedures are to be conducted on a spool piecebyspool piece basis.
Therefore, a required 100% reinspection pertains only to a given spool piece. Seldom will all
spool pieces of the entire piping system require 100% reinspection at any given time. The
spool piece-specific evaluation provides the technical basis for the utility to economically
plan reinspections with regard to interval and extent.
The Guidelines do not address the following important issues due to the current limitations in
the understanding of seam weldment behavior:
(i) Determination of the risk of leak-before-break is currently limited by the poor
predictability of the relative crack growth rates in the through-wall and pipe axis
directions, and by the inability to predict link-up of neighboring cracks along the weld
seam.
(ii) The Guidelines procedures apply to a damage process that occurs heterogeneously
by the initiation of a crack or damage zone (zone of discontinuous creep
microcracks), followed by time-dependent growth of the crack or damage zone across
the remainder of the section. This form of damage accumulation is representative of
the experience, and the Guidelines procedures are predicated on this experience. The
Guidelines procedures do not apply to a homogeneous damage scenario wherein
creep cavitation occurs simultaneously through a large portion of the pipe wall
followed by rapid cavity link-up producing failure. This form of damage may occur
7-2
Conclusions
under circumstances where the hoop stress across a significant portion of the pipe
wall is uniform due to, for example, certain pipe geometry characteristics (e.g.,
ovality, roof angle). There was no documented field evidence of this homogeneous
damage failure scenario in U.S. utility HRH piping in 1993. Hence, this form of
damage is not treated in these Guidelines.
(iii) The current Guidelines do not specifically address the potentially detrimental
effect of pipe ovality and a roof angle at the seam weld, and no requirements have
been identified for inspecting for these geometries. The effect of roof angle and
ovality on weldment stresses under creep conditions, and on the rate of creep crack
growth, remains to be quantified.
(iv) The effect of piping configuration and weld geometry on the local stresses acting
on a seam weldment under creep (stress redistributing) conditions can provide for
better prioritization of locations to be examined/sampled, and can help quantify the
potentially damaging effects of cycling. Pipe bends, elbows, and fittings are of
particular interest.
Despite the limitations and exceptions discussed above, the Guidelines are expected to
provide conservative predictions of remaining life and the consequent reinspection interval
for the following reasons:
(i) Use of crack growth rate predictions that are benchmarked against field experience
of cracking and failure, representing a small fraction of the operating seam-welded
piping-hours.
(ii) The recommended prediction generally requires using four times the normally
calculated crack driving parameter (roughly a factor of three increase over the median
growth rate from laboratory tests).
(iii) Requirement of 100% inspection the first time, triggered by a 10% LFE criterion
representing a small fraction of the rupture life design basis.
(iv) Restricting the crack growth-based evaluation procedure to the HRH pipe seam
weldment fusion line and weld metal cracking phenomena; Type IV fine-grain HAZ,
and weld centerline fine-grain, cracking problems primarily identified with main
steam pipe seam weldments are treated even more conservatively as being flaw-
intolerant conditions requiring repair or replacement.
(v) Evaluations based on conventional ultrasonic examinations alone use a
conservatively sized and located (fusion line for HRH piping) flaw.
(vi) The single, straight-crack extension prediction is expectedly faster than the
growth of a microcrack damage zone that grows by progressive initiation of
microcracks that branch and link-up (observed in some HRH pipe cases).
(vii) The evaluation procedure does not include the potentially beneficial effect
(increased remaining life prediction) of stress gradients through the pipe wall.
(viii) Sample removal is always called for when the remaining life estimate is less
than the DII (Desired Inspection Interval). This reduces any uncertainty in NDE-
based evaluation.
7-3
Conclusions
7-4
8
REFERENCES
1 Becker, F.L., Walker, S.M., and Viswanathan, R., Guidelines for the Evaluation of Seam-
Welded Steam Pipes, EPRI CS-4774, Final Report on Research Project 2596-7, Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, February 1987.
2 Foulds, J.R., and Carnahan, R.A., Examination of Sabine 2 Hot Reheat Pipe Seam Weld
Cracking, EPRI TR-107141, Final Report on Research Project 2253-17, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, March 1997.
3 Industry Experience and Overview of Steam Pipe Activities, Proc., EPRI Conference on
Fossil Plant Life Extension, Washington, DC, June 1986, R.B. Dooley and R. Viswanathan,
eds., Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
4 Marschall, C.W., Jaske, C.E., and Majumdar, B.S., Assessment of Seam-Welded Steel
Piping in Fossil Power Plants, EPRI TR-101835, Final Report on Research Project 2596-11,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, December 1992.
5 Private Communications, European Utility to Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
California, 1994.
6 Henry, J.F., Ellis, F.V., and Lundin, C.D., The Influence of Flux Composition on the
Elevated Temperature Properties of Cr-Mo Submerged Arc Weldments, WRC Bulletin 354,
Welding Research Council, New York, NY, June 1990.
7 Schaefer, J.E., and Connell, D.J., Unpublished Internal Report, Detroit Edison Co., Detroit,
MI, 1988.
8 Tuliani, S.S., Boniszewski, T., and Eaton, N.F., Notch Toughness of Commercial
Submerged-Arc Weld Metal, Weld. Met. Fabr., Vol. 37, 1969, pp. 327339.
9 Wells, C.H., and Viswanathan, R., Life Assessment of High-Energy Piping, in ASME
Pressure Vessel and PipingDecade of Progress, ASME, New York, NY, 1993.
10 Cane, B.J., Aplin, P.F., and Brear, J.M., A Mechanistic Approach to Remanent Creep Life
Assessment of Low Alloy Ferritic Components Based on Hardness Measurements, ASME
J. Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 107, August 1985, p. 295.
11 Bissell, A.M., Cane, B.J., and Delong, J.F., Remanent Life Assessment of Seam Welded
Pipework, Proc., 1988 PVP Conference, MPC-Vol. 28, PVP-Vol. 151, ASME, New York,
NY, 1988, p. 1.
8-1
References
12 Norris, R.H., and Saxena, A., Influence of In-Service Aging on the Creep Crack Growth
Behavior of Cr-Mo Steels and Their Weldments, Proc., First International Conference on
Microstructures and Mechanical Properties of Aging Materials, P.K. Liaw, et al., eds., TMS,
Warrendale, PA, 1992, p. 167.
13 Wells, C.H., On the Life Prediction of Longitudinal Seam Welds in Hot Reheat Piping,
Proc., 1986 EPRI Conference on Life Extension and Assessment of Fossil Plants,
Washington, D.C., R.B. Dooley and R. Viswanathan, eds., Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, CA.
14 Stevick, G.R., and Finnie, I., Failure Assessment of Weldments at Elevated Temperature,
Proc., 6th International Conference on Mechanical Behavior, Kyoto, Japan, June 1991.
15 Samuelson, L.A., Tu, S.T., and Storesund, J., Life Reduction in High Temperature
Structures Due to Mis-Match of Weld and Parent Metal Creep Properties, Proc.,
International Symposium on Mis-Matching of Welds, Luneburg, Sweden, May 1993.
16 Smith, G.V., Evaluation of the Elevated Temperature Tensile and Creep-Rupture Properties
of 1/2Cr-1/2Mo, 1Cr-1/2Mo, and 1-1/4Cr-1/2Mo-Si Steels, ASTM Data Series Publication
DS50, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1966.
17 Smith, G.V., Supplemental Report on the Elevated-Temperature Properties of Chromium-

Molybdenum Steels (An Evaluation of 2-1/4Cr1Mo Steel), ASTM Data Series Publication
DS6S2, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1971.
18 Cane, B.J., Damage Accumulation and Failure Criteria in Creep Brittle Ferritic Weldment
Structures, Proc., International Conference on Welding Technology for Energy
Applications, May 1982, CONF-820544, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN,
pp. 623639.
19 Buchheim, G.M., Osage, D.A., Brown, R.G., and Dobis, J.D, Failure Investigation of a Low
Chrome Long-Seam Weld in a High-Temperature Refinery Piping System, Proc., 1994
ASME PV&P Conference, PVP-Vol. 288, ASME, New York, NY, 1994.
20 Calladine, C.R., Theory of Shell Structures, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY,
1983, p. 443.
21 Paterson, S.R., Aptech Engineering Services, Inc., Private Communication to J.R. Foulds,
Failure Analysis Associates, Inc., July 21, 1994, re: Review of Draft Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Seam-Welded High Energy Piping, RP 8046-04 and RP 2819-24.
22 Lundin, C.D., and Wang, Y., Repair Welding of Service-Exposed Cr-Mo Steel Weldments,
WRC Bulletin 348, Welding Research Council, New York, NY, November 1989.
23 French, S., GPU Nuclear, Private Communication to J. Foulds, Failure Analysis Associates,
Inc., 1994.
8-2
References
24 Testimony of Dr. William E. Cooper before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of
California, May 1992, Exhibit No. 5, Southern California Edison
011 86-04-002.
25 Brosche, D., Northern States Power Co., Private Communication to R. Viswanathan, Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1990.
26 Liaw, P.K., Saxena, A., and Schaefer, J., Estimating Remaining Life of Elevated
Temperature Steam Pipes, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 32, No. 5, p. 675, 1989.
27 Roberts, D.I., Saxena, A., Han, J., and Banerji, K., Creep Crack Growth in Boiler and Steam
Pipe Steels, EPRI CS-5585, Topical Report on Research Project 2253-10, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1988.
28 Saxena, A., Creep Crack Growth Under Non-Steady State Conditions, in Fracture
Mechanics; Seventeenth Volume, ASTM STP 905, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1986, p. 185.
29 Jaske, C.E., Long-Term Creep-Crack-Growth Behavior of Type 316 Stainless Steel, in

Fracture Mechanics: Eighteenth Volume, ASTM STP 945, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1988, p. 867.
30 Failure Analysis Associates, Inc., SLIC2: An Updated Computer Code for Analysis of
Steam Line Cracking, developed for the Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA,
1987.
31 Saxena, A., PCPIPE Version 3.0: A Computer Code for Integrity Analysis of Elevated
Temperature Steam Pipes, February 1989, Structural Integrity Associates, Inc., San Jose,
CA.
32 Riedel, H, Creep Crack Growth, in Flow and Fracture at Elevated Temperatures, R. Raj,
ed., ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1985, p. 149.
33 Bassani, J.L., Hawk, D.E., and Saxena, A., Evaluation of the Ct Parameter for
Characterizing Creep Crack Growth Rate in the Transient Regime, in Nonlinear Fracture
Mechanics: Time-Dependent Fracture, ASTM STP 995, Vol. 1, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1988, p. 7.
34 Dedhia, D.D., Engineering Mechanics Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA, BLESS Version 4.0,
July 1994, developed from BLESS, An Integrated Approach to Life Assessment of Boiler
Parts, Volume 4: BLESS Code Users Manual and Life Assessment Guidelines, Report on
Research Project 2253-10, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1994.
35 Wells, C.H., Southwest Research Institute, Private Communication to R. Viswanathan, EPRI,

June 30, 1994, and to J. Foulds, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. July 1994, re: Review of
Draft Guidelines for the Evaluation of Seam-Welded High Energy Piping.
36 Nikbin, K.M., Smith, D.J., and Webster, G.A., An Engineering Approach to the Prediction
of Creep Crack Growth, J. Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 108, 1986, p. 186.
8-3
References
37 Rehn, I.M., and Apblett, W., Corrosion Problems in Coal Fired Fossil Boiler Superheater
and Reheater Tubes, EPRI CS-1811, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA,
1981.
38 Viswanathan, R., Foulds, J.R., and Roberts, D.I., Methods for Estimating the Temperature
of Reheater and Superheater Tubes in Fossil Boilers, in Proc., International Conference on
Life Assessment and Extension, The Hague, Netherlands, June 1988, Paper No. 1.6.2,
Nederlands Instituut Voor Lastechniek.
39 Lundin, C., Materials Applications Inc., Private Communications to R. Viswanathan, EPRI,

September 20, 1993, re: Oxide Dating of Cracks and Inclusion Data.
40 Neubauer, B., and Wedel, U., Restlife Estimation of Creeping Components by Means of
Replicas, Advances in Life Prediction Methods, D.A. Woodford and
J.R. Whitehead, eds., ASME, New York NY, 1983 p. 307.
41 Cane, B.J., and Shammas, M., A Method for Remanent Life Estimation By Quantitative
Assessment of Creep Cavitation on Plant, Report TPRD/L2645/N84, Central Electricity
Generating Board, UK, June 1984.
42 Ellis, F.V., et al., Remaining Life Estimation of Boiler Pressure Parts, Vol. 4,
Metallographic Models For Weld Heat Affected Zones, EPRI CS-5588, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, November 1989.
43 Paterson, S.R., Aptech Engineering Services, Inc., Private Communication to

R. Viswanathan, EPRI, 1989.
44 Field Metallography Research Leads to Improved Re-Examination Interval For Creep

Damaged Steampipes, EPRI First Use Report B197, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, CA, December 1990.
45 Neubauer, B., et al., Life Assessment of Boiler Pressure Parts, Vol. 5: European Replica
Data Base Evaluation, EPRI TR-103377-V5, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
CA, November 1993.
46 Ishizaki, S., et al., Non-Destructive Residual Life Evaluation Techniques of Boiler

Materials, in Proc., International Conference on Life Assessment and Extension, The
Hague, Netherlands, June 1988, Paper No. 1.2.2, Nederlands Instituut Voor Lastechniek, The
Hague, 1988.
47 Cane, B.J., and Aplin, P.F., Creep Life Assessment Methods, ASME Pressure Vessel and
Piping Conference, Denver, CO, July 1993.
48 Walker, S., and Selby, G., UT Operator Training for Sizing of Intergranular Stress-
Corrosion Cracking (IGSCC), EPRI Competency Area 911, 1989.
49 Henry, J.F., and Randolph, R.D., Seam Weld Failures in High-Energy Piping:
Understanding Weldment Behavior, Technical Paper, EPRI Piping Workshop, Charlotte,
NC, September 1993.
8-4
References
50 Selby, G., RAYTRACE: Computer-Aided Ultrasonic Plotting Tool, EPRI Report NP-
7448-SL, August 1991.
51 edhia, D.D., Engineering Mechanics Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA, Private
Communication to J.R. Foulds, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, April
1994.
52 Der, T.J., et al., Methods of Sampling Service Components for Metallurgical Evaluation of
Remanent Creep Life, SE/SSD/RN/81/067, Central Electricity Generating Board, UK,
October 1981.
53 Gandy, D.W., et al., State-of-the-Art Weld Repair Technology for High-Temperature and -
Pressure Parts, EPRI AP-103592, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, June
1998.
54 Guidelines for the Advanced Ultrasonic Examination of Seam-Welded High Energy Piping.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: December 2000. Report 1000564.
55 Guidelines for the Evaluation of Seam-Welded High Energy PipingAn Executive

Summary of Current Approaches. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: November 1998. Report TR-
111380.
56 Evaluation of Phased Array Techniques for Application to Seam-Welded High Energy

Piping Examinations. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: December 1998. GC-110142.
57 British Standard BS 7706, Guide to Calibration and Setting-up of the Ultrasonic Time-of-
Flight Diffraction (TOFD) Technique for the Detection, Location, and Sizing of Flaws. 1993.
58 Selby, G., Development of Phased Array Ultrasonic Examination Applications at the EPRI
NDE Center, Proceedings, 6th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, San
Diego, CA, May 1998.
59 Procedure for Phased Array Ultrasonic Examination of Boiling Water Reactor Core Shroud
Welds. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: December 1997. GC-108070.
60 Steam Line Inspection and Condition Monitoring, EPRI Project RP1893-4, June 1991.
61 The Use of Weld Overlays to Extend the Useful Life of Seam Welded High Energy Piping in
Fossil Power Plants. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: February 2001. Report 1001270.
62 Examination of E.C. Gaston Unit 4 Hot Reheat Piping Seam Weld Failure, Southern
Company Services
8-5
A
CRACKING AND FAILURE EXPERIENCE
Data on piping and operating conditions for cracks and failures experience through 1993 appear
on pages A-2 through A-34. Later experience data begin on page A-35.
A-1
Cracking and Failure Experience
Plant Name: B
Operating History
Size : 1120 MW
Duration : 80,000 h 1975/1987
Failure Date : 1987
Component : HRH pipe straight section.
T, P : Design: 1000F/900 psi Actual: 1000F/720 psi
Mode : Base load; monthly start-stop
Repairs : None
Dimensions : Length: 9' spool OD: 36" Wall: 2.25"
Hoop Stress : Design: 5.7 ksi Actual: 5.4 ksi
Flow Rate : 6.5 million lbs/h at full load
Manufacturing History
Material : 2-1/4Cr-1Mo
Pipe Manufacturer : Taylor Forge
Fabricator :
AE :
Welding Process : SAW
Weld Geometry : Double-V; 10-20 passes
Heat Treatment : Subcritical PWHT
Code Applicable :
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : UT followed by removal of plug sample.
Location of Crack : Midwall at the triple points of double vee.
0.1" initial crack at 1.06" depth below OD surface.
Crack Dimensions : Intermittent over 2-3' length. Max depth
dimension 0.34".
Inspections : This crack detected by UT. No mention
of prior inspections.
Replication : None. 3" diameter plug sample removed.
Stress Analysis : None
Failure Consequences :
Visual Observations :
Metallurgical Analysis
Performed by : Failure Analysis Associates.
Crack Origin : Pre-existing solidification crack 0.1"
radial dimension, located 0.84" from ID.
Crack Path : Follows FL, slightly on the weld metal side.
Creep Damage : No cavitation.
Inclusions : Mn and Si containing. High density of
inclusions in some samples.
Chemistry :
Hardness :
Microstructure :
A-2
Oxide Dating : Oxide deposition in crack contains Cu and

S. No dating.
Auger Analysis :
Fractography : Dimpled rupture; particles in dimples.
Mechanical Tests
Creep :
Rupture : Estimated 10% life fraction consumed.
Crack Growth : The 0.1" initial defect was predicted to
grow to 0.41" in 80,000 h comparing
favorably with the actual size of 0.34".
Fracture Mechanics :
Conclusions : Crack started at pre-existing solidification

crack of 0.1" propagated in creep by ductile
rupture of ligaments between inclusions.
Disposition : The 9' long spool was replaced.
A-3
Plant Name: C
Operating History
Size :
Duration : 1965/1993; 150,000 h
Failure Date : 1993
Component : HRH piping
T, P : Design: 1050F/515 psi Actual: 1045F
Mode : Load cycling; typical cycle 132 h long
Repairs :
Dimensions : Length: OD: 27.64" Wall: 1.437"
Hoop Stress : Design: 4.69 ksi Actual:
Material : 2-1/4 Cr-1Mo steel
Pipe Manufacturer : Wordon
Fabricator : Alsthom
Welding Process : Manual metal arc
Weld Geometry : Straight sided U with 1-2 root passes
Code Applicable :
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : UT, core plug sample
Location of Crack : Cracks at FL. Cavities at FGHZ max at
root pass cusp near ID
A-4
Crack Dimensions : Max. = 140 mils

Inspections : ERA Technology method. Many
indications <120 mils (3 mm)
Replication : One indication was 140 mils (3.6 mm)
Stress Analysis :
45 spools examined. 9 with dimensional UT indications. 22 with point indications. Smallest crack detected 20
mils. Largest 140 mils. In addition, cavitation in FGHAZ. Cavity distribution as a f(depth). N = # of
cavities/mm2. Varies from 100-4800 max. at cusp. 2 out of 6 samples showed 4800.
Visual Observations
Performed by :
Crack Origin :
Crack Path :
Creep Damage :
Inclusions :
Chemistry : Weld .05C; base metal 0.15c.
Hardness :
Microstructure :
Oxide Dating :
Auger Analysis :
Fractography :
A-5
Mechanical Tests
Creep :
Rupture :
Crack Growth :
Conclusions
Disposition
Need to use unit 1 more year, before replacement.
A-6
Plant Name: F
Operating History
Size : 745 MW
Duration : 1970/1986
Failure Date : April 1986
Component : Elbow in HRH pipe. Clamshell type.
T, P : Design: 1000F/600 psi Actual:
Mode :
Repairs : None
Dimensions : Length: OD: 30" Wall: 1.4"
Material : 1-1/4Cr-1/2Mo
Pipe Manufacturer :
Fabricator :
AE :
Welding Process : High heat input SAW
Weld Geometry : Double-V
Heat Treatment : Believed to be N&T
Code Applicable :
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : Found visually during pipe replacement; several
other 50% through wall indications in pipe.
Location of Crack : Originating FL mid wall.
Crack Dimensions : Through wall 20" long on OD and 30" long
on ID.
Inspections : UT one year earlier had not revealed any
indications.
Replication :
Stress Analysis :
Performed by :
Crack Origin : Slag inclusion
Crack Path : Creep crack along FL.
Creep Damage : No significant cavitation ahead of crack,
a few. Few isolated cavities also in weld
metal.
Inclusions : Aligned at FL.
Chemistry : Low C content may have contributed.
Hardness :
Microstructure :
Oxide Dating :
A-7
Auger Analysis :
Fractography :
Mechanical Tests
Creep :
Rupture :
Crack Growth :
Conclusions :
Disposition : Pipe replaced.
A-8
Plant Name: G2
Operating History
Size : 250 MW; CE boiler
Duration : 184,000 h 1957/1985
Failure Date : 1985
Component : Hot reheat pipe; vertical run; straight section.
T, P : Design: 1050F/475 psi Actual: 390 psi
Mode : Base loaded. Total 384 cycles.
Repairs :
Dimensions : Length: OD: 27.5" Wall: 1.125"
Flow Rate : 1,000,000 lb/hr
Material : 2-1/4Cr-1Mo steel
Pipe Manufacturer :
Fabricator :
AE :
Welding Process : SAW - acid flux
Weld Geometry :
Code Applicable :
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : UT; subsequently MT and boat sample
removed.
Location of Crack : Originating subsurface near OD
propagating to OD.
Crack Dimensions : 14" long, extending 75% through wall; i.e.,
0.825" deep.
Inspections : This crack detected by UT. No mention of
prior inspections.
Replication : None; boat sampling.
Stress Analysis : Vertical run of pipe. Hence, no unique stress
conditions related to hangers and supports.
Performed by : TVA, C. Lundin
Crack Origin : 1/16" slag inclusion located at fusion
line, midwall is believed to have
initiated localized cracking.
Crack Path : Along fusion line on the weld metal

side. Inclusion banding as well as
ferrite banding at this location.
A-9
Creep Damage : Aligned cavities along fusion line.

Isolated creep cavities at locations away
from crack in weld metal, to a degree
far less than Plant J. No damage
in base metal or HAZ. Damage primarily
confined to FL.
Inclusions : Much higher density of inclusions at FL

(1.25%) vs. BM (0.77%) at crack location.
Away from crack 0.98% at FL vs. BM
(0.59%). Distributions are characterized
MnO-SiO2-Al2O3.
Chemistry : C Mn P S Si Cu Al Sb As
.064 1.19 190 290 .21 .14 .004 <4 10
Sn O N
90 .085 .013
Hardness : Weld metal 121 DPH; HAZ 121 DPH;
Base metal 115 DPH. No mismatch.
Microstructure :
Oxide Dating : Not performed.
Auger Analysis : Not performed.
Fractography :
Mechanical Tests
Creep :
Rupture : Weldment properties are below mini-
mum scatterband. Rupture in base metal
at high stress and in weld at low stress.
Fusion line failure could not be repro-
duced. Hence damage is believed to be
localized due to slag inclusion.
Crack Growth :
Conclusions : Slag inclusion initiated localized crack.

Assisted by aligned inclusions at
fusion line and segregation bands.
Disposition : The 20' long spool containing defect was

replaced.
A-10
Plant Name: G1
Operating History
Size : 880 MW
Duration : August 1974 to February 1993; 156,000 h
Failure Date : February 1993
Component : Main steam line outlet lead piping
Straight section, in 10' spool piece
T, P : Design: 1000F/3600psi; Actual: 1000F/3000 psi
Mode : Baseloaded problem unit; coal-fired
Repairs : None
Dimensions : Length: 10' OD: 18" Wall: 3-5/8"
Material : SA 387 Grade 22
Pipe Manufacturer : Combustion Engineering
Fabricator : Combustion Engineering
Welding Process : Saw
Weld Geometry : U-groove
Code Applicable : ASME I
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : Leak detected by acoustic leak detector for BTF
Location of Crack : 2" above weld line from header; fusion line
Crack Dimensions : 33" long on OD, 5" long on ID, 40" long midwall
Inspections : Inspection of 3 other steam leads after this failure
showed many indications max 1" and other
smaller intermittent.
Inspection of failed pipe at high sensitivity
showed many indications. No previous NDE.
Replication :
Stress Analysis :
Failure Consequences : Leak forced outage
Visual Observations:
Performed by : J. Henry, CE
Crack Origin : Started by microfissuring 1" below OD,
then propagated to OD and ID.
A-11
Crack Path : Fine-grain HAZ; Type IV.

Creep Damage : Extensive microfissuring 1" below OD at
FGHZ.
Inclusions : Not important
Chemistry : C Mn P S Cu Al As Sn N O
.11 .48 90 340 .19 30 130 120 .01 40
Hardness : Base Weld HAZ
137-139 141-146 131-145 Hv
Microstructure :
Oxide Dating :
Auger Analysis :
Fractography :
Mechanical Tests
Creep :
Rupture :
Crack Growth :
Conclusions : Pipe failed by Type IV cracking.
Disposition : 10' long spool piece replaced with seamless pipe.
A-12
Plant Name: J
Operating History
Size : 200 MW; CE boiler
Duration : 184,000 h 1957/1986
Failure Date : 1986
Component : HRH pipe straight section.
T, P : Design: 1050F/415 psi Actual: 1053F/362 psi
Mode :
Repairs : Original weld 4 passes. Subsequently a large
multipass repair weld and a small single pass
repair weld from ID had been deposited.
Flow Rate : 1,122,000 lb/h at steady rate
Material : 2-1/4Cr-1Mo steel
Pipe Manufacturer :
Fabricator :
AE :
Welding Process : Submerged arc
Weld Geometry : Double-V; originally 4 passes; later weld repair
multipass from OD and single pass from ID.
Heat Treatment : Original weld was N&T; after the repair weld,
subcritically PWHT so that a HAZ was created in
the middle of original weld metal.
Code Applicable :
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : UT using EPRI guidelines; subsequently
boat sample removed.
Location of Crack : Originating mid wall, growing to ID.
Crack Dimensions : 9.5" long, extending 60% through wall
connecting to ID.
Inspections : This crack detected by UT. No record of
prior inspections.
Replication : None; boat sampling.
Stress Analysis :
Failure Consequences : Near rupture had been prevented.
Performed by : TVA
Crack Origin : Principal crack emanated from a LOF
defect midwall in the HAZ created by the
repair weld. Cracking also present w/o
pre-existing defect on the other side. Initial flaw
0.1" deep at 0.45" from OD, 0.3" from ID.
A-13
Crack Path : Intergranular at the HAZ of the repair

weld i.e., in the middle of the original
weld metal.
Creep Damage : Extensive cavitation ahead of crack (Class
4 microcrack).
Extensive cavitation in the weld metal,
(Class 3A, many oriented cavities) even at
locations far removed from the
weld repair suggesting inferior creep
properties of weld.
Inclusions : Cavitation (early stage creep damage) was
associated with inclusions. No clear-cut
alignment of inclusions reported.
Chemistry : C P S Si Ni Cr Mo Mn
.09 150 150 .33 .11 2.0 .84 1.01
Hardness : Weld 120-130 DPH; BM & HAZ
130-139 DPH
Microstructure :
Oxide Dating :
Auger Analysis :
Fractography :
A-14
Mechanical Tests
Creep :
Rupture : Service exposed base metal properties were near
minimum of scatterband for material. Weldment
properties were 20% to 50% of the minimum,
depending on whether failure occurred in weld
metal or at the cusp region of double-V.
Crack Growth : By Battelle
Conclusions : Creep cavitation in weld metal due to

inferior properties.
Propagating cracks in HAZ created by
weld repair.
Inclusions served as sites for cavitation but
cracking was intergranular not interfacial.
Disposition :
da = BCtm
dt
B m
Cross weld 1.92 x 10-1 0.83 Mean
Weld 8.08 x 10-1 1.1 kips-in/hr
Cross weld 2.11x10-1 0.74 Upper bound

Weld 5.46x10-1 0.96
Cross weld 8.5x10-8 0.74 Upper bound

Weld 9.25x10-8 0.96 Ct in watts/m2
& = 8.88 x 10-10 6.26 in ksi, & in %/hr
A-15
Plant Name: M2
Operating History
Size : 750 MW, supercritical
Duration : 88,000 h 1971/1985
Failure Date : June 1985
Component : HRH pipe straight run
T, P : Design: 1000F/660 psi
Actual: 37% of the time >1005F time/weighted p
= 597 psig
Mode : Base load
Repairs :
Dimensions : Length: 20' pipe OD: 30" Wall: 1-5/16"
Hoop Stress : Actual: 6.5 ksi
Material : 1-1/4Cr-1/2Mo, ASTM 387 Grade C
Pipe Manufacturer : Taylor Forge
Fabricator : Associated Piping & Engg. Co.
AE : Bechtel
Welding Process : High heat input SAW
Weld Geometry : Double vee, one ID and three OD passes,
4 passes.
Heat Treatment : N&T
Code Applicable : ANSI B31.1 1955 code
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : Ruptured
Location of Crack : Originated midwall at cusp of OD and ID
passes, propagated to ID, then to OD.
Crack Dimensions : 18' long and 7' wide at the widest point.
Terminated few inches past girth weld on
one side and few inches shy of girth weld
on other side.
Inspections :
Replication :
A-16
Stress Analysis :
Failure Consequences : Six died. 10 seriously injured.
Performed by :
Crack Origin : Not related to pre-existing defects.
Started at the cusp between the OD and
the ID passes. Multiple initiation and
link up along length.
Crack Path : Along FL on the weld side.
Creep Damage : Bulk creep damage in inner weld pass and
in some locations of first outer pass in the
form of isolated cavities at grain bound-
aries of weld metal. Oriented and linked
cavities along primary fracture. No
damage in base metal. Isolated cavities
and even microcracking observed even in
intact piping.
Inclusions : Numerous inclusions in weld metal;
Aligned at FL. Higher concentration in
the ID pass than in OD passes.
Chemistry : Inner weld pass samples at mid fracture

(sample D)
C Mn P S Si Cu Al Sb
0.08 0.97 200 120 0.56 0.13 .0095 19
As Sn O N
42 130
Hardness : RB 76-82 uniform across weld. No
mismatch. Rupture section had slightly
higher hardness compared to intact
sections.
Microstructure : No HAZ consistent with N&T.
Oxide Dating : ID-connected for >10,000 h or >21,000 h,
depending upon rate law used.
Fractography : Dimpled rupture at inclusions.
Mechanical Tests
Creep : Yes
Rupture : Life fraction estimate for 597 psig
Cross weld specimens from OD, cusp,
ID from cracked and from uncracked
spools. OD, base metal and uncracked
are well above ASTM minimum.
Only cusp and ID material containing
inclusions are below minimum.
Crack Growth : C* vs. da/dt was near lower-bound
A-17
scatterband for sample far-removed

from damaged area.
130,000 h and 42,000 h life predicted for growth of
a 0.05 in. midwall crack using laboratory data with
1xcrack-tip driver (Ct or C*) and 4xcrack-tip
driver, respectively.
Fracture Mechanics : Yes
Conclusions : Creep cavitation at inclusions, aligned

cavitation at FL followed by crack growth.
Sharp cusp contributed.
Disposition :
in./h ksi-in/h h-1 ksi
da = B C m & = A n
dt t
B m A n
Fusion Line 1.27x10-1 1.08 6.87x10-13 7.66
Weld 4.81x10-2 0.92 3.05x10-11 5.88
at a location removed from ruptured spool piece.
A-18
Plant Name: M2A

Operating History
Size :
Duration : Some in 1967, others 1972
Failure Date : September 1982, November 1982,
December 1983, July 1983, December 1983,
Five failures
Component : Clamshell elbows; 90 elbows in HRH
line
T, P : Design: 1005F/644 psig Actual:
Mode : Base load
Repairs : None
Dimensions : Length: 20' pipe OD: 30" Wall: 1-5/16"
Inner radius of bend 33"
Hoop Stress : Design: Actual:
Material : 1-1/4Cr-1/2Mo, ASTM A 387 Grade 11
Pipe Manufacturer :
Fabricator : Associated Piping & Engg. Co.
AE :
Welding Process : SAW E8018 - B2 filler. Welds from OD.
Weld Geometry : Single-V groove
Heat Treatment : Subcritical PWHT 1150-1350F/2h
Code Applicable : B31.1
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : Leak/UT
Location of Crack : Always at inner radius bends. Crack
starts at ID and travels to OD.
Sometimes OD to ID (2 cases at Plant M2).
Crack Dimensions :
Inspections :
Replication :
Stress Analysis :
Performed by : Met Tek, FaAA, Teledyne
Crack Origin : ID or OD; weld metal. Sometimes hot
crack fissure reported.
Crack Path : Entirely in weld metal.
Creep Damage : Isolated cavities in weld. No creep in base
metal.
Inclusions :
A-19
Chemistry : C Mn Si P S Cu
.08 .16 .94 80 100 .24
.85 .80 .76 150 170 .19
Hardness : RB 77 to 81
Microstructure :
Oxide Dating : Not performed.
Fractography :
Mechanical Tests
Creep :
Rupture :
Crack Growth :
Conclusions : Three conflicting reports:

1. contaminated spool wire and hot cracking due
to high Si, Cu and S and fissuring (MetTek)
2. creep (FAA)
3. due to 10-15% higher stresses at the inner
radius weld.
Disposition : Replaced.
A-20
Plant Name: M1
Operating History
Size : 757 MW
Duration : 97,261 h 1971/1986
Failure Date : January 1986, during full load operation
Component : HRH line straight section; bottom side of
horizontal run. North line.
Mode : Base loaded.
Repairs : At several locations, but not at failure origin.
Dimensions : Length: 39' spool OD: 32" Wall: 1.505" min.
Flow rate :
Material : 2-1/4Cr-1Mo steel, ASTM 387D
Pipe Manufacturer : Fabricated by Dravo Corp. and manufactured by
National Annealing Box Co.
Fabricator :
AE :
Weld Geometry : Double-V, 16 passes
Heat Treatment : Annealed at 1700F
Code Applicable : ANSI B31.1
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : Rupture; 8 minutes of leak prior to
rupture.
Location of Crack : Originated at OD from a toe crack.
Crack Dimensions : 20'; terminated at girth weld on one side
and in base metal on the other.
Inspections : None reported previously.
Replication : Used to classify inclusions and identify
pipes at risk.
Stress Analysis :
Visual Observations : Fishmouth type break 20' long 6' wide
at the center.
Performed by :
Crack Origin : OD toe crack (pre-existing) that was
40,000 hr old.
Crack Path : Along FL.
Creep Damage : No significant cavitation in weld or
ahead of FL.
Inclusions : Manganese Al silicates. Aligned
inclusions at FL.
A-21
Chemistry : C Mn P S Si Cu Al Sb
0.06 1.44 100 120 0.34 0.24 0.019 0.013
As Sn O N
610 .0.06
Hardness : RB 81-84 uniformly. No mismatch
indicated.
Microstructure :
Oxide Dating : Inconclusive.
Auger Analysis : At failure interface 3%S, 1.8%Sn,
3.7%Sb, 2.3%Cu, 2.3%Mo showing
weakening of interfaces by segregation.
Fractography : Shallow dimples indicative of low
ductility rupture.
Mechanical Tests
Creep : Cross weld and weld specimens showed identical
& . Base metal creeps slower at least by factor of 2.
Rupture : Cross weld specimens. Properties
below minimum for scatterband, but
indicate 35 year remaining life; failure
occurred in FL.
LMP calculation showed life fraction
consumed of only 3%.
A-22
Crack Growth : For a pre-existing defect 30 to 60 mils, a

rem. life of 6-8 y was obtained using CCG
data at high inclusion fusion line.
Fracture Mechanics : Yes
Conclusions : Failure originated at toe crack and

propagated by creep along FL due to
aligned inclusions. Segregation of
impurities assisted in weakening
interface. Crack propagation occurred
over 6-8 years, once an initial crack of
30-30 mils was established.
Disposition : Replaced spool pieces based on

replication.
Details of Mechanical Properties

da = BCtm
dt
B m
Cross weld 8.6 x 10-2 0.809 da/dt in mm/h
Weld 4.23 x 10-2 0.922 Ct in kJ/m2-h
Cross weld 2.21x10-1 0.809 da/dt in in./h

Weld 1.95x10-1 0.922 Ct in in-kip/in2 h
& n
n
MPa-n/h ksin/h
Cross weld & Weld MPa-n/h ksin/h
Least squares 3.88x10-25 7.71x10-17 9.9
95% upper conf. line 7.09x10-25 1.41x10-16 9.9
95% lower conf. line 2.13x10-25 4.23x10-17 9.9

Plant Name: MS1
Operating History
Size : 570 MW
Duration : 152,000 h 1965/1990
Failure Date : September 1990
Component : Main steam superheater outlet header link pipe.
Mode : Base load
Repairs : None previously
Dimensions : Length: 31" OD: 16 " Wall: 2.75"
A-23
Material : 2-1/4 Cr-1Mo ASTM A387 Grade D
Pipe Manufacturer :
Fabricator :
AE : Combustion Engineering
Weld Geometry : Straight sided U groove with 1 or 2 root passes.
Heat Treatment : Stress relieved
Code Applicable : ASME Section I
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : Visual during UT inspection
Location of Crack : Center of weld, originated midwall
Crack Dimensions : 16" long on OD
Inspections : None previous
Replication :
Stress Analysis :
Visual Observations : Visible crack open 16" long on OD.

Performed by :
Crack Origin : No pre-existing defect.
Crack Path : Centerline of weld-originated midwall
and propagated to OD in fine-grain area
between weld beads in centerline of weld.
Creep Damage :
Inclusions : Very clean.
Chemistry :
Hardness :
Microstructure : Numerous plate laminations unrelated to
failure.
Oxide Dating :
Auger Analysis :
Fractography :
Mechanical Tests
Creep :
Rupture :
Crack Growth :
Conclusions : Creep in refined grain area between weld

beads.
Disposition : Spool replaced.
A-24
Plant Name: MS2

Operating History
Size : 570 MW
Duration : 168,000 h 1965/1992
Failure Date : September 1992
Component : Main steam superheat outlet header link
pipe.
Mode : Base load
Dimensions : Length: 6' spool OD: 16" Wall: 2.75"
Material : 2-1/4Cr-1Mo, ASTM A387 Grade D
Pipe Manufacturer :
Fabricator :
AE : Combustion Engineering
Weld Geometry : Straight sided U groove with 1 or 2 root
passes.
Code Applicable : ANSI B31.1 (ASME Section 1).
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : Leak
Location of Crack : Center of weld, originated midwall.
Crack Dimensions : 26" long on OD, 9" long on ID
Inspections : UT in 1990 showed minor indications
thought to be laminations. ASME Section V.
Replication :
Stress Analysis :
Visual Observations : Crack opened 1/4" to 3/8" at the widest point.

One end of the crack arrested in a girth weld.
Performed by : Radian.
Crack Origin : No pre-existing defect.
A-25
Crack Path : In the weld metal but at the fine-grained HAZ at

the boundary of a multi pass weld.
Creep Damage : Considerable cavitation in the HAZ in
the middle of weld.
Inclusions : Very clean.
Chemistry : C Mn Si P S Cr Ni Mo O
.07 .91 .46 .021 .010 2.10 .28 1.00 847 ppm
Hardness :
Microstructure : Numerous plate laminations unrelated to failure.
Oxide Dating :
Auger Analysis :
Fractography :
Mechanical Tests
Tensile Strength : BM HAZ WM
37 ksi 36 ksi 33 ksi
Creep :
Rupture :
Crack Growth :
Conclusions : Creep cavitation and link up in FGHAZ.

VEPCO believes crack grew to failure in 2 yr.
Disposition : Failed section replaced.
Plant Name: MS3
Operating History
Size : 570 MW
Duration : 172,000h 1965/1993
Failure Date : April 1993
Component : Main steam superheater outlet lead line
Mode : Base load
Material : ASTM A387 Grade B (1-1/4Cr-1/2Mo)
Pipe Manufacturer :
Fabricator AE : Combustion Engineering
Weld Geometry : Not known
Code Applicable : ASME Section I
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : During UT Inspection
Location of Crack : 18 1/2" long subsurface, multiple surface
A-26
cracks 10" long on OD on both sides of

weld.
Crack Dimensions : 1-5" in depth
Inspections : Inspected in '90 using ASME Section V
and cleared.
Replication :
Stress Analysis :
A-27
Visual Observations:
Metallurgical Analysis : Cracks up to 10" long on OD near
weld toe (both sides).
Performed by : Virginia Power, Univ. of Tennessee

Crack Origin : Mid wall
Crack Path : On both edges of weld in the FG HAZ.
Type IV cracking.
Creep Damage : Serviced induced creep in FG HAZ.
Inclusions :
Chemistry :
Hardness : No mismatch between weld metal and
base metal. BM HAZ WM
HV 0.5 160 135-155 170
Microstructure :
Oxide Dating :
Auger Analysis :
Fractography :
Mechanical Tests
Creep :
Rupture :
Crack Growth :
Conclusions : Type IV cracking in fine-grain HAZ -

initiated mid-wall and propagated to OD.
Disposition : Gouged and repaired cracked area.

Planning replacement of all similar
spool pieces.
A-28
Plant Name: S1
Operating History
Size : 220 MW
Duration : 17 years 1962/79
Failure Date : July 1979
Component : HRH pipe bend 90 vertical bend
T, P : Design: 1000F/500 psig Actual: 488 psig
Mode : Base loaded; 80 unit starts; 3400 load
following cycles.
Repairs : None
Dimensions : Length: OD: 20" Wall: 0.74" min.
Material : 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo, ASTM A155 Class 1.
Pipe Manufacturer : Plate by U.S. Steel. Pipe fabrication
(Welding & HT) by Taylor Forge.
Fabricator : Taylor Forge; Bend Fab/HT unknown.
AE : Stone and Webster
Welding Process :
Weld Geometry :
Heat Treatment :
Code Applicable : B31.1, 1955 Code
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : Rupture
Location of Crack : Origin reported at ID
Crack Dimensions : 8' long 100% through wall
Inspections : No prior inspections reported; radiographed and
hydrotested per ASME prior to installation.
Replication : None
Stress Analysis : None
Failure Consequences : Rupture with little forewarning. No injuries.
A-29
Performed by : Stone & Webster; Radian Corp.
Crack Origin : ID or midwall FL. No prior defects
reported.
Crack Path : Fusion line
Creep Damage :
Inclusions : Very low. Not contributing to failure.
Chemistry :
Hardness :
Microstructure :
Oxide Dating : Corrosion products indicated that an 80"
long 2/3 through wall had existed for a long
time.
Auger Analysis :
Fractography :
Mechanical Tests
Creep :
Rupture :
Crack Growth :
Conclusions : Failure due to creep rupture.

Disposition : 125' out of a total of 410' were distorted;
these have been replaced.
A-30
Plant Name: S2
Operating History
Size : 220 MW
Duration : 210,000h 1962/1992
Failure Date : 1992
Component : HRH pipe horizontal 90 sweeping bend
of radius 8'4".
T, P : Design: 1000F/500 psig Actual: 488 psig
Mode : Baseloaded; 209 cycles; 8500 load follow
cycles.
Repairs : None
Dimensions : Length: OD: 20" Wall: 0.74" min.
Wall measured by UT 0.674"
in places.
Flow Rate :
Material : 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo, A155, Class 1, Grade 11
Pipe Manufacturer : Plate by U.S. Steel. Pipe fabrication
(Welding & HT) by Taylor Forge.
Fabricator : Taylor Forge; Bend Fab/HT unknown.
AE : Stone and Webster
Welding Process : SAW, neutral flux
Weld Geometry : Double-V; one ID and one OD pass, cusp
at midwall.
Heat Treatment : Normalized and tempered.
Code Applicable : B31.1, 1955 Code
Inspection/Analysis
Detection Method : Leaked
Location of Crack : 6 o'clock position, at seam weld along neutral axis
of bend. Cusp/midwall-initiation likely.
Crack Dimensions : 16" long crack;1.5" of it through wall
Inspections : In 1985 B&W UTed 70' long straight
pipe, but not bend.
In 1989, 100% UT by Bechtel per ASME
Section V and found .05" deep indicat-
ion at bend ID, but considered unim-
portant.
In 1991, MQS retested the three indica-
tions including the one at bend and
cleared the pipe.
1992, failure occurred.
In 1992 APTECH UTed and found
numerous indications (after failure).
Replication : None
Stress Analysis : In 1985; Hanger adjustments and stress
A-31
analysis.
Failure Consequences : Non-catastrophic. Leaked for 1-1/2 hr
while load was dropped.
Visual Observations : No evidence of ovality or creep defor-

mation. Narrow depressions or grooves
on the outer surface. Ave. 10 roof angle.
Performed by : Failure Analysis Associates.
Crack Origin : Midwall cusp initiation likely.
Crack Path : Fusion line; alternates from one side of
weld to the other.
Creep Damage : No evidence of ovality or creep defor-
mation visually.
Inclusions : Very low; not contributing
Chemistry :
Cr Mo Mn Si Cu Ni P S N O C
Weld 1.22 0.53 0.83 0.65 0.25 0.12 200 130 140 900 0.12
BM 1.10 0.48 0.53 0.65 0.14 0.10 240 110 130 66 0.16
Hardness : Hv 0.5: BM=145-150, WM=145-150

Microstructure :
Oxide Dating : ID connected crack >3 years.
Auger Analysis : No
Fractography : No
Mechanical Tests
Creep :
Rupture :
Crack Growth :
Conclusions :
Disposition : All reheat piping is being replaced. APTECH
found numerous significant indications
throughout the system.
A-32
Plant Name: AV2
Unit Number 2
Unit Size 450
Fuel Type Coal
Typical Service Baseloaded
Year of Unit Startup 1986
Operating Hours at Failure
Type of Piping HRH
Piping Details
Failed Component Straight Runs and Clamshell Elbows
Boiler Manufacturer
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1984
Design Temperature (F)
Normal Operating Temperature (F) 1005
Design Pressure (psig)
Normal Operating Pressure (psig)
Design Steam Flow (lbs/hr)
Normal Operating Steam Flow (lbs/hr)
Component Length
Component OD (in)
Specified Minimum Wall (in)
Component Bend Radius (in)
Service and Maintenance History
General Location
Specific Location
Piping Material Specification A387 Gr22
Piping Material Other Data
Consequence of Failure Planned Outage - Routine Inspection
Consequence Detail Creep cavitation found by TOFD and FATS confirmed by
metallography of plugs
Incident Date 1998
How Failure Discovered Scheduled TOFD and FATS confirmed by plug
sampling and metallography
Failure Mechanism and Cause Creep
Comments on Failure Creep cavities in ID weld nugget
Metallurgical Report Conclusions
Remedial Action Spools to be replaced at future outage
A-33
Plant Name: B3
Unit Number 3
Unit Size 446
Fuel Type Coal or Oil
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Link
Boiler Manufacturer CE
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1955
Normal Operating Temperature (F)
Component Length
Component OD (in)
General Location
Specific Location AE located emission source. Plug sample removed to
establish origin of source
Piping Material Other Data 2Cr1Mo
Consequence of Failure Planned Outage Routine Inspection
Consequence Detail Not severe
Incident Date 1998
How Failure Discovered UT/Plug Samples
Failure Mechanism and Cause Unknown
Comments on Failure Metallography did not confirm a valid source for the AE
signal
Remedial Action Steam line was replaced.
A-34
Plant Name: C1
Unit Number 1
Unit Size 552
Fuel Type Coal
Operating Hours at Failure 198,000
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Steam Link
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1972
Normal Operating Pressure (psig) 2500
Component Length 9
Component OD (in) 20
Specified Minimum Wall (in) 3.032
Service and Maintenance History 198,000 hours never been inspected
General Location
Specific Location
Piping Material Other Data Subcritical PWHT, double stacked SAW welded
Consequence of Failure Leaking
Consequence Detail Leak heard, but unit continued to operate, inspection revealed
steam leak
Incident Date 1999
How Failure Discovered
Comments on Failure Type IV cracking at HAZ of SAW weld centerline at bead
overlap
Remedial Action Link was replaced and unit returned within ten days
A-35
Plant Name: CC3
Unit Number 3
Unit Size 350
Fuel Type Oil
Typical Service Cycled
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Thermowell
Boiler Manufacturer Hitachi
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1976
Design Temperature (F) 1010
Component Length
Component OD (in)
General Location
Specific Location Cracking at Thermowells made of austenitic steel
Piping Material Other Data Type 308 welds welded to P22 steel
Consequence Detail Found at routine inspection
Incident Date 1997
How Failure Discovered MT/PT
Comments on Failure Creep caused by thermal expansion mismatch
Remedial Action All thermowells on units 1, 2, and 3 replaced with P22 steel
A-36
Plant Name: CO2
Unit Number 2
Unit Size 13
Fuel Type Oil
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Pressure tap welds
Boiler Manufacturer ABB
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1961
Component Length
Component OD (in)
General Location
Specific Location Cracking at pressure tap weld attachments
Piping Material Other Data 2Cr- 1Mo
Consequence Detail Multiple cracks found during outage
Incident Date 1996
How Failure Discovered UT/PT
Comments on Failure
Remedial Action Cracks ground out and rewelded
A-37
Plant Name: ECG4
Unit Number 4
Unit Size 250
Fuel Type Coal
Typical Service
Type of Piping HRH
Piping Details
Failed Component Long-sweep elbow
Piping Manufacturer Dravo
Service Year
Normal Operating Pressure (psig) 465 (RH)
Component Length 7 damaged, 20 rupture crack length
General Location
Specific Location Bend HR-7
Piping Material Other Data 1Cr-Mo
Consequence of Failure Unplanned Outage
Consequence Detail
Incident Date December 2001
How Failure Discovered Rupture
Comments on Failure
Metallurgical Report Conclusions No pre-existing weld defects
Remedial Action Replaced piping segment
A-38
Plant Name: FM1
Unit Number 1
Unit Size 500
Fuel Type Coal
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Seamed Link
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1966
Component Length
Component OD (in)
General Location
Specific Location Failure in Penthouse during hydro
Consequence Detail During hydro no consequential damages
Incident Date 1996
How Failure Discovered Leaking at hydro
Comments on Failure Cavitation along fine-grained HAZ accumulated during years
of service. Final rupture by low-temperature cleavage.
Remedial Action All seam welded piping replaced.
A-39
Plant Name: G3
Unit Number 3
Unit Size 161
Fuel Type Coal and Oil
Typical Service Load Following
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Straight run
Boiler Manufacturer B&W
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1957
Design Pressure (psig) 1960
Component Length
Component OD (in)
General Location
Specific Location
Piping Material Specification Unk
Piping Material Other Data Unk
Consequence Detail NDE indication at weld
Incident Date 1996
How Failure Discovered MT/Visual
Comments on Failure
Remedial Action Defects ground out and weld repair performed
A-40
Plant Name: GA5
Unit Number 5
Unit Size 229
Fuel Type Coal
Type of Piping HRH
Piping Details
Failed Component Wye block
Boiler Manufacturer
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1964
Component Length
Component OD (in)
General Location
Specific Location Outlet legs on Wye block pantleg type. Craze cracking on
OD surface
Piping Material Other Data
Consequence Detail Water leaking from insulation prompted unit shutdown
Incident Date 1985
How Failure Discovered Leaking from insulation, visual cracking once insulation was
removed.
Failure Mechanism and Cause Fatigue, thermal
Comments on Failure Thermal fatigue from external quenching, hanger malfunction
Remedial Action Wye block was replaced and outlet legs replaced.
A-41
Plant Name: GA6
Unit Number 6
Unit Size 389
Fuel Type Coal
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Wye block
Boiler Manufacturer Unknown
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1957
Component Length
Component OD (in)
General Location
Specific Location Wye Block in main steam system near turbine
Consequence Detail NDE Indication at routine inspection
Incident Date 1999
How Failure Discovered MT
Failure Mechanism and Cause Manufacturing defect
Comments on Failure Suspected forging laps no evidence of in-service
propagation by creep
Remedial Action Indication blended out and WYE continued to operate.
A-42
Plant Name: GE2
Unit Number 2
Unit Size 390
Fuel Type Oil or Gas
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Elbow
Boiler Manufacturer
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1961
Component Length
Component OD (in)
General Location
Specific Location Elbows on main steam lines circumferential cracking
Consequence Detail Routine repairs
Incident Date 1994
How Failure Discovered MT/UT
Comments on Failure Bending creep/fatigue
Remedial Action Cracks were excavated and rewelded.
A-43
Plant Name: GL8
Unit Number 8
Unit Size 60
Fuel Type Coal
Typical Service Peaking
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Tee
Boiler Manufacturer Parsons
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1951
Component Length
Component OD (in)
General Location
Specific Location Girth weld on Tee
Piping Material Specification Cr-Mo-V
Piping Material Other Data Cr-Mo-V
Consequence Detail Circ Crack
Incident Date 1995
How Failure Discovered Leaking
Comments on Failure Type 4 or reheat cracking in weld HAZ of Cr-Mo-V to 2Cr
1Mo steam line
Remedial Action Tee replaced All leads inspected and rewelded.
A-44
Plant Name: H5
Unit Number 5
Unit Size 500
Fuel Type Coal and Oil
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Vertical Run
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1967
Component Length
General Location
Specific Location Failure occurred in vertical pipe run below penthouse
Consequence of Failure Catastrophic Major Collateral Damage
Consequence Detail 9 foot 11 inch longitudinal split, moved pipe 12 inches. Split
opened 7.5 inch at center
Incident Date 1998
Comments on Failure Creep initiated on ID of single J groove weld
Remedial Action All piping replaced. Boiler destroyed in additional event.
A-45
Plant Name: HP4
Unit Number 4
Unit Size 40
Fuel Type Oil
Typical Service Peaking
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Header Girth Weld
Boiler Manufacturer Unknown
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1949
Component Length
Component OD (in)
General Location
Specific Location
Piping Material Other Data 1CrMo
Consequence of Failure Planned Outage Routine inspection
Consequence Detail NDE indication at routine inspection
Incident Date 1998
How Failure Discovered MT
Comments on Failure
Remedial Action In-situ metallography confirmed defects had been ground out.
Part returned to service.
A-46
Plant Name: K2
Unit Number 2
Unit Size 237
Fuel Type Coal
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Seamed Link
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1965
Component Length
General Location
Specific Location
Consequence Detail Cracking found by WFMP. Plug samples revealed creep at
fine-grained HAZ
Incident Date 1995
How Failure Discovered UT Shear/Visual
Comments on Failure Creep cavitation in fine-grained HAZ (type 4) failure
Remedial Action Spool replaced with seamless pipe
A-47
Plant Name: MA1
Unit Number 1
Unit Size 348
Fuel Type Coal
Type of Piping HRH
Piping Details
Failed Component Seamed Straight Section
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1964
Component Length
General Location
Specific Location TOFD UT inspection located cracking in long seam welds
Piping Material Other Data 1CrMo
Consequence Detail Multiple cracks at TOFD inspection
Incident Date 1999
How Failure Discovered TOFD inspection identified multiple possible cracks. Plug
samples confirmed type 4 cracking.
Comments on Failure Creep from long term service
Remedial Action Piping replaced with seamless material
A-48
Plant Name: MO2
Unit Number 2
Unit Size 700
Fuel Type Coal
Type of Piping HRH
Piping Details
Failed Component Clam Shell Elbow
Boiler Manufacturer
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1958
Component Length
General Location
Specific Location Clam shell elbows
Piping Material Specification A155 Grade B
Consequence Detail Cracks detected at scheduled outage
Incident Date 1997
How Failure Discovered TOFD/FATS
Comments on Failure Creep in long seam welds
Metallurgical Report Conclusions Elbows made by Dravo
Remedial Action Elbows were replaced
A-49
Plant Name: N1
Unit Number 1
Unit Size 153
Fuel Type Coal
Type of Piping HRH
Piping Details
Failed Component Straight Runs and Clam Shell Elbows
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1966
Component Length 430
Service and Maintenance History 245,000 hours, previous cracking in 1986
General Location Seam weld
Specific Location Creep cavities in seam weld cusp
Piping Material Other Data 2Cr-1Mo
Consequence Detail Scheduled outage
Incident Date 1997
How Failure Discovered Scheduled TOFD and FATS
Comments on Failure Creep cavitation
Metallurgical Report Conclusions 3 spools replaced
Remedial Action Suspect spools were replaced
A-50
Plant Name: NA2
Unit Number 2
Unit Size 803
Fuel Type Coal
Type of Piping HRH
Piping Details
Failed Component Elbow
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1974
Component Length
Component OD (in)
General Location
Specific Location Inspected 14 elbows, 2 long radius sweeps and 21 straight
sections. 10 of 14 elbows had creep damage
Consequence Detail Creep damage discovered using FATS and TOFD
Incident Date 1998
Comments on Failure Cavitation at weld fusion line
Remedial Action Plant operating temperature reduced, elbows will be replaced.
A-51
Plant Name: NA3
Unit Number 3
Unit Size 803
Fuel Type Coal
Type of Piping HRH
Piping Details
Failed Component Straight and Long Sweeps
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1975
Component Length
Component OD (in)
General Location
Specific Location Inspected all straight sections and 2 long sweeps 9
clamshells previously replaced, Creep found in cross over
piping
Consequence Detail Scheduled inspection
Incident Date 1999
Comments on Failure Suspected creep in long seam welds. High inclusion contents
make detection difficult
Remedial Action Unit continued derated at 950F Replacement
planned in 2003
A-52
Plant Name: NU7
Unit Number 7
Unit Size 324
Fuel Type Oil and Gas
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Tee
Boiler Manufacturer Sargent and Lundy
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1949
Component Length
General Location
Specific Location Each lead from Tee block was cracked at the circ weld-Sag in
main steam line
Consequence Detail Cracking found during scheduled outage
Incident Date 1997
How Failure Discovered UT / Shear
Failure Mechanism and Cause Malfunctioning hanger
Comments on Failure
Remedial Action Hanger replaced and line realigned.
Cracks welded and PWHT applied
A-53
Plant Name: S1A
Unit Number 1A
Unit Size 565
Fuel Type Coal
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details
Failed Component Straight Run
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1965
Component Length 10
Service and Maintenance History Previous leak in 1993, indications found in 1994
Specific Location Straight run in Penthouse
Consequence Detail Link ruptured during full load operation forcing an immediate
shutdown
Incident Date 1996
Comments on Failure Type 4 creep cracking in centerline of double bead SAW weld
Remedial Action Link and all similar piping was replaced
A-54
Plant Name: SB1
Unit Number 1
Unit Size 147
Fuel Type Oil and Gas
Operating Hours at Failure 278500
Type of Piping MS
Piping Details Type: Original weld SAW; Repair weld SMAW (Repair
probably made at time of fabrication.) Design hoop stress: At
elbow intrados ~7055 psi (Significantly higher than hoop
stress at straight run.) Code applicable: ASME Sect.1, ASME
B31.1 and ASA 16.9
Failed Component Clam Shell Elbows
Boiler Manufacturer B&W
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1960
Component Length
Specified Minimum Wall (in) 2
Component Bend Radius (in) 21
Service and Maintenance History 278,500 h; 341 starts; 1960/1995; Repairs: Elbow replaced
with seamless 2Cr
Specific Location Intrados Crack Dimensions: OD: ~10" total length; ID:
<"; Midwall: >10"
Piping Material Specification Grade 11, Cl. 1
Piping Material Other Data 1Cr-Mo (ASTM A234 WP11W); Chemistry: Weld and
base metal within specified ranges; Carbon content
intermediate; No significant quantity of trap elements; Oxide
content indicated neutral to basic flux
Heat Treatment: Original weld normalized and tempered;
Repair weld subcritical PWHT
Mechanical Properties:
Hardness: Repair weld deposits had ~15% higher hardness
values than base metal
Creep Damage: Significant cavitation evident especially at
crack tip
Mechanical Tests: Stress rupture and crack growth rate testing
performed
Stress Analysis: hoop stress at failed elbow: ~7055 psi;
Remainder of line received simple B31.1 elastic analysis
Consequence Detail Steam leak led to a forced outage, ~ 1 weeks prior to
planned outage; The outage was started to accommodate
inspection and replacements
Incident Date 1995
How Failure Discovered Detection Steam leak was visually detected by operator.
Inspection in 1989, this line was 100% inspected (girth and
seam welds) via MT and UT. No reportable indications were
A-55
detected; The inspection was to ASME Sect. V criteria and not

EPRI criteria.
In 1995, after discovering the leaking elbow the entire line
was inspected via MT and UT (all girth and seam welds);
EPRI criteria were followed; within the clamshell elbows
seam welds, several reportable indications were detected; One
seamed elbow (in addition to the failed elbow) was replaced
after a 2" long, planar indication was revealed;
Approximately 60 other small indications (<" long) were
present at seams; No reportable indications were detected in
any of the girth welds
Comments on Failure The crack initiated midwall in the heat affected zone of repair
weld; Repair weld was a contributing factor to failure
Metallurgical Report Conclusions 1. The crack path was along the fine-grained heat affected
zone of the repair weld.
2. The microstructure of the base metal was ferritic.
3. The inclusion density in the material was normal.
4. Fracture surface oxide was relatively uniform and thick
from midwall to OD; average thickness was ~9 mils. Oxide
dating gave the estimate that the crack had been exposed to air
for a minimum of 58,000 hours.
Remedial Action The elbow was replaced.
A-56
Plant Name: SP
Unit Number Unknown

Unit Size
Fuel Type
Typical Service
Year of Unit Startup
Type of Piping MSL
Piping Details
Failed Component Seam welded straight
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year
Component Length
Specified Minimum Wall (in) 3
Specific Location Crack ran along seam weld in a 10 foot long spool piece,
arrested at girth weld at the two ends
Piping Material Specification
Piping Material Other Data P 22 (1CrMo) Steel
Consequence Detail Plant shut down due to water leak in seamed pipe
Incident Date 1996
How Failure Discovered Water drip was noticed; Visual examination showed crack and
leaking area
Comments on Failure
A-57
Metallurgical Report Conclusions No problem in adjoining unseamed pipe.

Remedial Action Crack was excavated. Pipe was weld repaired and operation
continued. Pipe will be replaced by seamless pipe in
September 1996.
A-58
Plant Name: ST1
Unit Number 1
Unit Size 202
Fuel Type Coal
Type of Piping HRH
Piping Details
Failed Component Seamed Long Sweep Elbow
Boiler Manufacturer
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year 1966
Component Length
Component OD (in)
General Location
Specific Location Locations identified using OMEGAPIPE Software
Consequence Detail Linked cavities at weld fusion lines
Incident Date 1998
How Failure Discovered Plug Sampling
Comments on Failure Long term creep cavity formation
Remedial Action Unit derated to 950F replacement planned
A-59
Plant Name: U
Unit Number Unknown

Unit Size
Fuel Type
Typical Service
Year of Unit Startup
Type of Piping HRH
Piping Details
Failed Component Clam Shell Elbow
Boiler Manufacturer
Piping Manufacturer
Service Year
Component Length
Service and Maintenance History 152,341 hours
General Location Seam Weld
Specific Location Rupture
Piping Material Other Data 1Cr-Mo
Consequence Detail Rupture
Incident Date 1997
Comments on Failure Cavitation propagation in long seam weld. Cavities associated
with non-metallic inclusions
Remedial Action Pipe replaced with seamless
A-60
B
ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION PROCEDURE
Purpose
This procedure provides guidance for the ultrasonic examination of seam-welded steam line
piping by means of manual pulse-echo techniques.
Scope
This procedure is applicable to 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo and 2-1/4Cr1Mo seam-welded hot reheat and main
steam piping having a nominal wall thickness of 0.75 to 4.0 inches.
Equipment
Ultrasonic Instrument
The ultrasonic instrument should be of the pulse-echo type, capable of generating and receiving
frequencies in the range of at least 1 to 5 MHz. The instrument should provide screen width
linearity within 5% of full-screen width and height linearity within 5% of full-screen height.
Ultrasonic Search Units
Search units may be single or dual element, producing shear wave angle beams or longitudinal
wave straight beams.
Search unit element sizes of 3/8" x 3/8", 3/8" round, 1/2" x 1/2", or 1/2" round are appropriate
for this piping, with a nominal frequency of 2.25 MHz. In addition to zero-degree longitudinal
wave (straight beam) and 45-degree shear wave (angle beam), search unit wedges are fabricated
to produce the required shear wave angles to strike nearly perpendicular to vertical flaws at the
weld root and to flaws lying along the weld fusion line.
The straight beam search unit is used to verify that no laminar reflectors inhibit the angle beam
examination of the weld and adjacent heat affected zone (HAZ) volume.
The shear wave angles required to provide near perpendicular incidence to vertically oriented
incomplete penetration and angled side wall lack of fusion are to be utilized. The 45-degree
shear wave may or may not also be appropriate for the side wall lack of fusion examination.
B-1
Ultrasonic Examination Procedure
Typically, a 60- or 70-degree shear wave search unit will be necessary for the vertically oriented
flaws. There may be some circumstances where both a 60- and a 70-degree shear wave are
required in addition to the 45-degree search unit.
A simple trigonometric relationship exists which can be used to determine the incident angle at a
given location through the weld thickness. If the search unit refracted angle is known, along
with the outside radius of the pipe and the radius to the given through wall location, the incident
angle can be calculated by the following formula for examinations conducted from the outside
surface:
SINE IA = OR/IR X (SINE RA), (B-1)
where: IA is the incident angle,
RA is the refracted angle,
OR is the outside radius of the pipe, and
IR is the radius to the given location
as shown in Figure B-1
For example, if the pipe is 30 inches in outside diameter with a 1.5-inch wall thickness and a 60-
degree refracted shear wave search unit is used, the incident angle at the root of the double vee
weld can be calculated. It is assumed (based on design) that the root is at 1/3 the wall thickness
from the inside surface, or 0.5 inch. Using the above formula,
SINE IA = 15/14 X (SINE 60)
IA = 68 DEGREES
Alternatively, if precisely a 90-degree incident angle is desired, the refracted search unit angle at
the outside surface can be calculated by the following formula:
SINE RA = IR/OR (B-2)
B-2
Figure B-1
Calculation of incident angle for outside surface examination.
B-3
The same geometric conditions as above are used to calculate the required refracted angle to
provide 90-degree incidence at the root of the weld.
SINE RA = 14/15
RA = 69 DEGREES
If the examination is conducted from the inside surface, the formula for calculating the incident
angle becomes:
SINE RA = OR/IR X (SINE IA) (B-3)
where: IA is the incident angle,
RA is the refracted angle,
IR is the inside radius of the pipe, and
OR is the radius to the given location
as shown in Figure B-2.
Note that it is not possible to have an ultrasonic beam perpendicular to an embedded flaw when
the examination is conducted from the inside surface.
For each of these conditions, the search unit beam spread must be considered since the beam has
a trailing edge as well as a leading edge and is not simply a line of ultrasonic energy. Beam
spread would be approximately 8 or 9 degrees with a 1/2 inch diameter search unit operated at
2.25 MHz. Therefore, the leading edge of the 60-degree refracted shear wave beam would be
perpendicular to a reflector lying at the root of the weld in the above example. This is not ideal,
but enough energy is reflected in order to identify the indication.
Basic Calibration Block
The basic calibration block should be made of low carbon or alloy steel. P-numbers P-1, P-3, P-
4, and P-5 from ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section IX are considered equivalent
for the purposes of this calibration. The calibration block is ideally made from pipe of the same
nominal thickness and curvature as the piping to be examined in order to have the same incident
angles at the reflector locations. An example of a basic calibration block design is shown in
Figure B-3.
B-4
Figure B-2
Calculation of incident angle for inside surface examination.
B-5
Figure B-3
Example of basic calibration block design
B-6
Calibration
Notch reflectors are used to establish the reference level for the 45-degree search unit. Notches
used for primary reference sensitivity must be 1/32 inch deep for thicknesses up to and including
1.75 inch. For thicknesses greater than 1.75 inch, 2% of thickness notches shall be used. If
conducting a full vee examination, the inside surface and outside surface notches are used to
establish the distance amplitude correction (DAC) curve. For a half vee examination, the end-
drilled holes are used to establish the DAC curve, with the notch response used to set the
sensitivity. The 60- and 70-degree search units are calibrated in the same manner as the 45-
degree search unit for a half vee examination, using only the hole reflectors (i.e., the notch
reflector is not necessary). A 1/8 inch diameter flat-bottomed hole located at the root of the
double vee weld is also available for comparison to embedded reflectors which may be found.
This aids in flaw discrimination. The 70-degree search unit is only used for the detection of
embedded flaws, or for confirmation of the extremity of a surface-connected flaw.
Examination
Surface Preparation
The ultrasonic examination is to be performed from a cleaned surface free from weld spatter,
roughness, loose scale, or other conditions which may interfere with free movement of the search
unit or impair the transmission of ultrasound.
Scanning Parameters
Once the reference level is established, the scanning sensitivity is determined by increasing the
instrument gain by 14 dB, presenting those reflectors which reflect 20% of the energy of the
reference reflector to the CRT for evaluation.
The search unit movement rate for scanning should not exceed 6 inches per second and scanning
overlap should be a minimum of 10% of the search unit piezoelectric element dimension
perpendicular to the direction of scan.
Scanning
Scanning performed in a direction perpendicular to the weld should extend as required to

examine 1/2t (nominal thickness of weld) of base material from the weld fusion line.
A lamination scan using straight beam longitudinal waves should be performed prior to the angle
beam examination. Intermediate reflectors which could interfere with the angle beam
examination should be recorded.
B-7
Shear wave examination should be accomplished from both sides of the weld using the incident
angles previously calculated. This examination should be performed by directing the ultrasonic
beam perpendicularly into the weld to detect indications parallel with the weld.
Recording
A clear reference system shall be established and documented to facilitate accurate monitoring of
indications during future re-examinations. The recording criteria is such that, as a minimum, all
reflectors which exceed 50% of the reference amplitude are recorded. Embedded flaws should
be recorded down to 20% of the reference level. Any indication that appears to be flaw-like,
regardless of amplitude, particularly those from the heat affected zone (HAZ), shall be recorded
and investigated to the extent necessary to determine the shape, identity and location of the
reflector.
Special areas of interest for ultrasonic indications in seam welds include the HAZ, cusp area and
ID weld toes.
When a recordable indication is identified, the following data shall be recorded as a minimum:
the peak amplitude; the search unit position with respect to the weld centerline; the search unit
location along the length of the weld; the sound beam direction; and the sweep reading (metal
path) to the reflector at the peak amplitude point. End points shall be recorded at the points that
the signal is discernible from the noise level. Measurements shall be recorded in inches to the
nearest 0.1 inch.
Once discontinuities are located, it is appropriate to search for reflectors with lower amplitudes
in order to distinguish whether the discontinuities are unique or also exist nearby with smaller
reflective surfaces. Particular attention should be given to the region near the root of double vee
welds. It is advisable to document the signal response from reflectors which may be lack of
fusion or incomplete penetration even if they are quite small.
Evaluation
The determination of geometric or defect conditions should be based on plotting of data, review
of previous UT data, review of available radiographs, or additional examination(s). Flaw
indication sizing shall be accomplished in accordance with proven sizing techniques and
evaluated in accordance with the provisions of established plant procedures.
The techniques described in this procedure are expected to produce meaningful examinations for
the detection of fabrication flaws and service-induced cracking of at least 0.030 inch in height.
However, it is not possible to detect isolated creep voids. Slight variations in the above
described techniques will not have a measurable effect on the examination. Each utility should
have a qualified NDE individual evaluate the specific procedure to be used and determine
acceptability such that the necessary flaw types and sizes are detected.
B-8
B-9
C
TIME-OF-FLIGHT DIFFRACTION EXAMINATION
PROCEDURE
1 SCOPE
1.1 This procedure defines the method and requirements for contact, automated, or
semiautomated ultrasonic time-of-flight-diffraction (TOFD) examination of high
energy piping longitudinal seam welds using ultrasonic acquisition and imaging
hardware and software.
1.2 This procedure is applicable to longitudinal seam welds in high energy piping
ranging from 16 to 42 inches (406 to 1,067 mm) in outside diameter and having a
nominal wall thickness ranging from 0.50 to 2.50 inches (12.7 to 63.5 mm).
1.3 The objectives for the techniques described within this procedure are to detect,
length size, and depth size flaws commonly associated with seam-welded high
energy piping. The procedure is applicable to discontinuities associated with the
fabrication process and cracking associated with service-induced creep damage.
1.4 This procedure is appropriate for weld crowns that are flat-topped, ground-flush,
or in the as-welded condition.
2 REFERENCES
2.1 American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Recommended Practice SNT-TC-

1A.
2.2 Guidelines for the Evaluation of Seam-Welded High Energy Piping. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: September 1996. TR-104321.
2.3 British Standard BS 7706, Guide to Calibration and Setting-up of the Ultrasonic
Time-of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) Technique for the Detection, Location, and
Sizing of Flaws. 1993.
2.4 European Standard prEN 583-6, TOFD Technique as a Method for Defect
Detection and Sizing.
3 DEFINITIONS
C-1
Time-of-Flight Diffraction Examination Procedure
3.1 A-Scan - an ultrasonic pulse in which signal amplitude is presented as a

displacement along one axis and the time-of-flight (travel time) is presented along
the other axis. In TOFD, unrectified A-scan waveforms are typically generated as
analog and then digitized for imaging. The ultrasonic signals in an A-scan display
typically correspond, in time, to the lateral wave, the top and bottom tip-diffracted
flaw signals (if present), and the longitudinal back wall. Further in time along the
A-scan waveform will be the much larger longitudinal-to-shear (L-S) wave and
shear-to-longitudinal (S-L) wave mode-converted back wall signals. A digitized
A-scan slice taken from the cursor position in the corresponding B-scan image is
presented in Figure C-1.
3.2 Averaging (Signal Averaging) - averaging over n A-scans improves the ultrasonic
signal response to that of random noise signals by a factor that is the square root
of n, thereby enhancing the ability of typically weak diffracted waves to be
imaged. Signal averaging takes the total digitized (sample points) from each A-
scan slice, multiplies this value by the gated A-scan length in microseconds
(sec), and adds them together to find the sum. The sum is then divided by itself
to find the average sample point value. The signal averaging value selected by the
user is then divided by the average sample point value. The square root of this
dividend provides the level of signal-to-noise improvement. Figure C-2 provides
an illustration of the effects of signal averaging.
3.3 Back Wall Signal Response - See Standing Wave Signals for definitions of L-L
and S-S back wall signal responses as well as L-S and S-L back wall mode-
converted signals.
3.4 B-Scan (also known as transverse, parallel, or lateral) - scan data collected while
the ultrasonic transmitting and receiving probes are deployed in tandem, adjacent
to but astride the weld, with scan motion progressing across the weld width; that
is, in the direction of sound transmission (see Figure C-3). The scan technique is
primarily used for evaluation and characterization procedures to determine flaw
lateral position and transverse-oriented flaw length and is known to provide the
greatest degree of through-wall depth sizing accuracy. Unlike the D-scan mode,
data collection procedures may be compromised because of scan surface
geometrical discontinuities associated with weld cap reinforcement, convexity,
concavity, or near adjacent transitions.
3.5 B-Scan Image - a digitized image generated during the performance of either D-
scan or B-scan data collection modes and recalled for subsequent data analysis
and reporting. The amplitude of an analog A-scan waveform is converted in
accordance with the user-defined digitization frequency to the appropriate gray
tone shade. This gray tone shade representation is then presented as one pixel line
on the computer screen display. As additional waveforms are acquired, they are
similarly gray-tone-coded and presented sequentially on adjacent pixel lines. The
resulting digital view is a two-axis plot in which time (that is, material cross-
sectional depth) is presented along one axis, and the transverse width (for B-
scans) or longitudinal length (for D-scans) of the scanned material is presented
along the other axis. In the B-scan display, all reflectors through the scanned
C-2
length of the weld or material are projected onto a single plane. In the D-scan
display, all reflectors through the width of the weld or material are projected onto
a single plane. Figure C-4 depicts the process of converting A-scan waveforms to
a B-scan image.
3.6 D-Scan (also known as linear, nonparallel, or longitudinal) - scan data collected
while the ultrasonic transmitting and receiving probes are deployed in tandem,
astride the weld, with scan motion progressing along the weld length; that is,
normal to the direction of sound transmission (see Figure C-5). The scan
technique is primarily used for initial detection procedures as well as evaluation
when subjective assessment of the lateral position/weld width location is required.
Unlike the B-scan mode, data collection procedures are not typically
compromised because of scan surface geometrical discontinuities associated with
weld cap reinforcement, convexity, or concavity.
3.7 Diffraction (also known as scattering) - the phenomenon in which small amounts
of acoustical energy are deflected out of the main ultrasonic beam, as may occur
in nonhomogeneous materials, as the front of the sound wave bends while passing
an edge of a reflecting surface (causing forward scattering facilitated when the
sound beam is much larger than the discontinuity), or as a reaction of an
impinging wave train upon an embedded flaw as it is caused to oscillate, radiating
waves from its edges or tips. The detection of these diffracted waves therefore
provides a mechanism through which the dimension of the reflector can be
directly measured. When operating in the pulse-echo mode, practitioners normally
utilize angled shear wave (S-wave) inspection to maintain the conventional beam-
directional, amplitude-based techniques while attempting to add tip-diffraction
detection to enhance sizing capabilities. However, because the conventional S-
wave techniques are intended primarily for the detection of specular reflections,
tips are often very difficult to isolate because they are often washed out by the
much stronger specular reflections. In addition, it has been demonstrated that the
strength of tip-diffracted signals is greatest when the impinging wave front that
causes the generation of diffracted waves is longitudinal in mode rather than
shear.
3.8 Digitizer Frequency (also known as sampling rate or sampling interval) - the
conversion of an analog A-scan waveform into a string of numbers is known as
digitization and consists of sampling the A-scan at a regular sampling interval or
rate, as shown in Figure C-6. The amplitude of each stored sample along with
position and phase information (sign) is passed to the computer for storage.
Therefore, the information stored in the computer is a string of numbers
representing a given A-scan, which can be recalled to reconstruct the A-scan for
an A-scan display. Alternatively, by stacking together the consecutive A-scans
collected during the course of conducting a B- or D-scan, a digitized B-scan
image of the examination can be displayed. The analog unrectified A-scan
waveforms are acquired and digitized at a rate sufficient to maintain the fidelity of
the waveforms. If the digitization rate is F MHz, then the interval between
digitization samples is S sec, where S = 1/F. Therefore, the number of samples
in an A-scan length of t sec is the number of samples to equal t/S or t*F. Setting
C-3
of the digitization frequency should be at least five times but not less that two
times the probe frequency.
3.9 Filters
3.9.1 High Pass - the main amplifier cutoff frequency for which signals are
filtered out (that is, not digitized), which is below the value selected by the
user.
3.9.2 Low Pass - the main amplifier cutoff frequency for which signals are
filtered out (that is, not digitized), which is above the value selected by the
user.
3.9.3 Rectifier - provides some degree of smoothing dependent on the value

applied when the rectified A-scan option is enabled.
3.10 Flaw Dimensions
3.10.1 Depth - the measured distance in the through-thickness or cross-sectional

plane from the scanned surface to the upper extremity of a flaw.
3.10.2 Height - the measured difference in distance in the through-thickness or

cross-sectional plane from the scanned surface between the upper and
lower extremities of a planar or volumetric flaw. Indications with through-
wall height are those that contain 1/2-cycle signals exceeding the number
of 1/2-cycle that comprise the lateral wave.
3.10.3 Length - the measured difference in distance in the parallel plane from the
scanned surface between the start and end of a flaw, usually representing
the flaws major axis.
3.11 Gain - the user-selected amplification applied from the ultrasonic systems main
amplifier to the analog unrectified A-scan waveforms, expressed in decibels (dB).
3.12 Gates (A-Scan Collection) - the time (in secs) in which the analog unrectified
waveforms are digitized by the ultrasonic system. Because the entire waveform
amplitude falling within the time-gated region is digitized, gate level amplitude or
screen height is inconsequential.
3.12.1 A-Scan Length (also known as gate length or gate width) - the length of the A-
scan that is digitized, expressed as length of time in secs.
3.12.2 Digitizer Start (also known as gate start) - the start of the gate in which the A-
scan is digitized, expressed as time in secs.
C-4
3.13 Material Velocity - the speed of propagation in the examination material for the
mode of ultrasound. Typically expressed in standard or metric units of distance
per second.
3.14 Nonparallel Scan - See D-Scan.
3.15 Parabolic Cursor - reproduces the TOFD response of a point source calculated
from within the gated region. The resulting parabolic-shaped characteristic
response is displayed on the B-scan image. The response from a point source will
vary with time (that is, depth) because of beam spread. Therefore, the shape of the
parabola changes as time (that is, distance) decreases or increases in through-
thickness/cross-sectional plane. The parabolic cursor feature must be calibrated
because the B-scan image is nonlinear with respect to depth. Ultrasonic velocity
in the material, probe delay, and probe separation distance (PSD) are required to
calculate flaw depths and through-wall heights. However, a more accurate
calculation of the depth can be made if the velocity and probe delay are found
from the measurement of the positions of the lateral wave and back wall signals.
This procedure helps to reduce any systematic errors, such as an error in the probe
separation caused by probe movement.
3.16 Parallel Scan - See B-Scan.
3.17 Phase - phase is assigned to one period of time (for example, frequency) of an
unrectified waveform. The cycle within the period constitutes a positive node (+)
and a negative antinode (-) sign of amplitude, which equal the (+) and the (-) half
cycle, respectively.
3.18 Phase Change - simplistically, phase changes occur when interference patterns of
minimum and maximum intensity within the forward scattered diffracted wave
fronts cause cancellation and reinforcement of the acoustical energy that
correspond to the roughness, size, and contour of the modifying interface
boundary. In general, as the roughness or faceted nature of the interface boundary
becomes greater, an increased potential for phase change/reversal is expected.
Conversely, smooth interface boundaries generate reflection and refraction, but
phase coherence is maintained, and less diffracted energy is expected. Figure C-7
depicts an unrectified A-scan waveform with theoretical phase changes.
3.19 Pre-Amplifier - a device used for amplification of the acquired ultrasonic signals,
especially the diffracted wave energy, which is commonly low in amplitude. The
pre-amplifier is typically placed near the receiving probe to ensure minimal loss
of signal to the ultrasonic system.
3.20 Probes (TOFD) - commonly called transducers, probes are electro-acoustical

devices incorporating one or more piezoelectric crystal elements intended for
transmission and/or reception of ultrasonic waves. For TOFD examination, time
resolution is essential. Therefore, probes designed (preferably of composite
construction) to produce short pulse lengths, broad bandwidths, and high-damping
characteristics for unrectified pulses are recommended.
C-5
3.21 Probe Angle - the effective refracted angle in the material under test, defined with
respect to the perpendicular (normal) to the scan surface, and typically produced
by probe shoes (wedges) constructed of plastic (for example, Lucite), brass, or
stainless steel of precise incident angles.
3.22 Probe Separation Distance - the distance measured or calculated between the
transmitting and receiving probes.
3.23 Probe Delay - the measured distance traveled through the wedge pair to/from the
probe face to/from the scan surface interface, usually expressed as time in secs.
3.24 Pulse Width - expressed in nanoseconds (ns) and equals the distance between the
edges of the negative rectangular transmitted pulse applied to the probe crystal
(see Figure C-8). Both edges of the pulse cause the probe crystal to oscillate, but
the resultant signals are 180 out of phase. The two bursts of ultrasound generally
overlap and interfere with one another. Altering the pulse width causes
cancellation or reinforcement of parts of the various cycles. A desirable feature is
to set the pulse width to 1 period of the wave frequency (1/F) (for example, 200
ns for 5 MHz). After one period, the two signals will be out of phase and a
smaller amplitude signal will be obtained, but the ringing will be reduced.
Resolution of closely spaced flaws and crack tips will be improved because of the
minimum number of cycles.
3.25 Pulse Repetition Frequency (effective) - the number of probe firings per second
divided by the number of averaged A-scan waveforms. It will generally be
necessary to set the pulse repetition frequency (PRF) for the data collection
system. This is the rate of firing the transmitter probe. If data are collected
manually, then the effective PRF should be set to coincide with the rate of moving
the probes so that the A-scans are collected at intervals of approximately 1 mm
along the scan. Because there is no information available to the computer system
on position of the probes, it can only collect A-scan data at the selected PRF. If an
encoder is attached to the scanner and the scanner is motorized, then the PRF is
not so important because the computer can work out the position of the probes
and only collect data at the specified A-scan sampling interval. If the scanning
speed is relatively fast, the PRF may have to be set as high as possible to ensure
that no time is lost between probe arrival at the required sampling position and the
availability of a firing pulse; that is, there must be sufficient time for the data to
be collected at the required scanning speed. If there is not sufficient time at each
sampling interval to collect the data, the data collection system will collect blank
A-scans. Methods of avoiding this include increasing the PRF and reducing the
scanning speed, the number of averages, the length of the A-scan to be digitized,
and the digitization rate. In certain circumstances (for example, with relatively
small, regularly shaped samples), the sound waves can be reflected around the
sample and appear at the receiver after the next successive transmission pulse.
This may give false signals, however, and must be avoided by reducing the PRF
appropriately. Such a situation is rare for TOFD inspections because the PRF used
is generally much lower than, for example, that used for pulse-echo inspections
where only the peak heights in a range gate above the threshold are recorded.
C-6
3.26 Raster Spacing - the interval distance between successive A-scans fired along the
scan length.
3.27 Standing Wave Signals - in TOFD, denotes that several standing waves are
present in the display, giving immediate reference for position of indications
through the thickness of the weld or material.
3.27.1 Lateral Wave Signal - the first standing wave encountered. It has the
shortest transit time because it runs directly between the transmitting and
receiving TOFD probes on a flat or convex surface. On a concave surface,
the wave follows the surface profile and may be referred to as a creeping
wave.
3.27.2 Longitudinal Wave Signal - the second standing wave encountered. It has
a greater transit time than the lateral wave because it is the received back
wall response of the angled transmitted longitudinal wave.
3.27.3 Shear Wave Signal - the third standing wave encountered. It has a greater
transit time because it is the received back wall response generated as a
slower velocity trailing wave from the transmission of the angled
longitudinal wave.
3.27.4 Mode-Converted Signals - as created by the selected longitudinal wave

angle, a slower velocity trailing shear wave is generated. At some point
within the beam spread of the shear wave, the beam strikes the opposite
wall surface at an angle appropriate to generate a mode-converted
longitudinal wave. Similarly, at some point within the beam spread of the
transmitted longitudinal wave, the beam strikes the opposite wall surface
at an angle appropriate to generate a mode-converted shear wave.
Although the velocities are inherently different, the overall transit time for
the two mode-converted waves is often the same; consequently, they may
superimpose.
3.27.5 Ultrasonic Reflection and Transmission - occurs when the sound beam
strikes a boundary where the greater the acoustical mismatch, the greater
the difference in the acoustical impedance of two materials. The amount of
reflected energy is proportional to the increase in the ratio of acoustical
impedance while, conversely, ultrasonic transmission decreases.
3.27.6 Voltage - peak voltage of transmitter pulse.
4 PERSONNEL
4.1 Personnel performing data acquisition and/or analysis shall have received
documented training in the use of the applicable ultrasonic equipment.
4.2 Personnel evaluating results shall be certified to at least UT Level II or Level III.
C-7
4.3 Additional requirements (such as performance demonstrations) for qualification

or certification of personnel responsible for data acquisition or analysis shall be at
the discretion of the owner.
4.4 Personnel whose involvement is limited to mounting tracks, scanner

manipulation, or marking of welds need not be certified.
4.5 Initial and final system setups and calibrations shall be verified by a UT Level II
or Level III.
5 EQUIPMENT and SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS
5.1 The automated ultrasonic system shall be a multichannel data acquisition and
imaging system that generates, as a minimum, two-dimensional grayscale images
of the UT TOFD data in real time. The system shall include the motion controls,
supporting pulser/receiver channels and digitizers, and UT signal preamplifiers
and peripherals including a hard disc drive, graphics display, and external disc
drive for data archival storage. The multichannel UT TOFD system shall provide
ultrasonic display mode views of B-scan (parallel) and D-scan (nonparallel) in
real time, and an A-scan (unrectified as a minimum) display for use during the
setup/calibration and evaluation/analysis processes.
5.2 The TOFD UT system shall have a software modeling program to assist in
determining the approximate beam coverage on flat and curved surfaces using
various search unit frequencies, wedge angles, and PSDs.
5.3 The system shall have routines to aid in analysis of the acquired data. As a
minimum, the following routines shall be included in the analysis program:
Linearization
Zoom control
A-scan view
Cursors (calibrated as a minimum)
Lateral wave or back wall: straightening and removal
Synthetic aperture focusing technique (SAFT)
Echodynamics
Multiple scans mode
Profiling
5.4 Scanners/manipulators shall be automated or hand-held semiautomated and of

various sizes to accommodate a variety of weld configurations. The
scanner/manipulator system shall be equipped with devices to correlate positional
references along the weld(s) to be examined (for example, optical encoders).
C-8
5.5 Preamplifiers providing approximately 3060 dB amplification gain shall be used

to maintain adequate signal-to-noise ratio and to return the collected ultrasonic
data to the acquisition and imaging system for digitization and analysis.
5.6 The search units shall be longitudinal wave probes having bandwidth, dampening,
center frequencies and element sizes designed for the UT TOFD technique.
Piezoelectric or composite elements may be used. Frequencies shall range from
1 to 15 MHz, as appropriate for the material acoustical properties and geometrical
shapes under examination. In general, high frequency and small diameter search
units apply to thin materials while low frequency and larger diameter search units
are used for thicker materials. Similar to search unit selection, wedges specifically
designed for UT TOFD applications shall be used. Various angles, such as 35,
45, 60, or 70, may be used to establish full examination coverage.
5.7 An approved couplant shall be used and documented on the appropriated

examination records.
5.8 Coaxial cables consisting of the minimum number of intermediate

cables/connectors not exceeding a total of 250 feet (76.2 m) may be used for
examinations unless signal degradation requires shorter distances.
6 SETUP and CALIBRATION
6.1 Calibration shall include the complete ultrasonic examination system. Any change
in search units, wedge angles or wedges, couplant, cables, preamplifiers, PSD, or
examination personnel shall be cause for a re-calibration.
6.2 Complete ultrasonic examination system calibration shall be performed within

one day prior to the examination for which the calibration is applicable, and at
least once each week during the examination period. Calibration shall be checked
on the adjacent weld base material and across the weld under examination on a
per weld basis. This may be performed statically or dynamically.
6.3 Time-of-flight accuracy verification shall be performed on a basic reference

standard at the beginning of each shift of operation.
6.4 The calibration reference shall be the basic response at the material adjacent to
and across the weld.
6.5 The temperature of the reference standard and the examination surface shall be
within 25F (14C) of one another.
6.6 Calibration records of signal waveforms should be maintained prior to and after
each examination. The calibration scans can be performed dynamically or
statically by recording one or more waveforms.
C-9
6.7 If the specimen used for the calibrations does not ultrasonically match the
material under examination, it may be necessary to consider attenuation factors.
Such effects may be ascertained by comparing the lateral wave and back wall
signal response shapes and amplitudes. Attainable distribution of ultrasonic
energy and frequency content of the beam may necessitate the use of two or more
probe configurations if such effects vary throughout the material to the degree that
flaw indications may not be resolved. The wedge angles, PSD, system bandwidth
(for example, filtering), and amplifier characteristics all influence the distribution
of energy in terms of amplitude and frequency content.
6.8 Verification of adequate volumetric coverage can be achieved either by referring

to the calibration scans taken on artificial flaws or by observing grain noise
throughout the region of interest.
6.9 The digitized extent of the A-scan waveforms (that is, time viewed on the image)
includes the period beginning slightly before the lateral wave and ending into or
shortly after the mode-converted waves. Time-of-flight accuracy, resolution, and
other key parameters are normally established and limited to within the ranges
dictated by the calculated PSD. However, improvement may be obtained in the
lateral wave and direct longitudinal wave signal cycles and time-of-flight
accuracy by altering the calculated PSD to an optimum setting. Furthermore,
when performing a D-scan, valuable information relative to flaw classification
and lateral position/weld side location may be gleaned from the data presented
between the direct L-wave and the mode-converted waves.
6.10 In order to resolve tip-diffracted signals between the lateral wave and back wall,
there must be time for several cycles defining the individual signals to occur and
for the signals to be sufficiently separated to be able to distinguish them. This
equates to time resolution. A cycle is the time equivalent to one wavelength of the
A-scan waveform and is simply the inverse of the probe frequency. Experience
has shown that if approximately 30 cycles occur between the lateral wave and
back wall signals, the optimum resolution will be obtained. Using the criterion
that a minimum of 20 cycles must fit into the time window between the lateral
wave and back wall signal, select the probes with frequencies nearest to this
criterion.
6.11 The type of probe should be chosen such that the pulse length for the lateral wave
and back wall signals do not exceed two cycles measured at 10% of the peak
amplitude. Therefore, probes designed (preferably of composite construction) to
provide short pulse length, broad-band, high-damping unrectified pulses are
recommended. The two probes in a TOFD array should have the same center
frequency within a tolerance of 20%.
6.12 Determination of the beam spread and the resultant inspection coverage may be
achieved via calculation and subsequent optimization of the PSD and/or plotting
with suitable modeling software. Because beam spread is a function of probe
frequency and diameter, selecting the smallest diameter in conjunction with the
lowest frequency probes to achieve adequate coverage must be balanced with
C-10
attenuation, time resolution, and sensitivity requirements. The larger diameter

probes provide greater energy in the material but have a smaller beam spread. For
B-scans, if the approximate depths of interest are known, the beam spread
restrictions may be relaxed.
6.13 The wedge angle should be determined after the PSD has been established. The
criteria for wedge angle selection are to direct the ultrasonic beams toward the
area of interest. Typical angles are 35, 45, 52, 60, and 70 from normal,
although higher angles tend to give rise to lateral waves of greater intensity,
thereby increasing the ability to recognize near scan surface flaws. Precise beam
angle is unnecessary because variations of 5 from nominal do not appreciably
affect the quality of the data.
6.14 Flaw type and location, weld joint geometry, and material thickness dictate to a
large degree the number of scans that should be performed to achieve full volume
coverage while ensuring that the flaws of interest are detected. The inspection
procedure should also specify the required depth range and volume of interest. If
more than one TOFD probe pair is required, each can be optimized in that the
setups need not have the same probe frequencies, diameters, and PSD.
6.15 Probe frequencies, wedge angles, probe crystal sizes, and numbers of centered D-
scans shall be consulted for appropriate for angle, probe frequency and diameter,
and number of scans required for applicable thickness ranges (see Table C-1).
Table C-1
Setup Parameters
Thickness Range, Angle, Frequency Crystal Size, Number of

mm degrees (MHz) mm Scans
(Inches) (Inches) Required
512 60 or 70 15 3 or 6 1
(0.200.47) (0.118 or 0.236)
1225 52 or 60 5 or 10 6 1
(0.470.98) (0.236)
2550 52 or 60 5 6 or 12 1 or 2
(0.981.97) (0.236 or 0.472)
50100 45 and 60 5 12 2
(1.973.94) (0.472)
Note: The correct choice of transmitting and receiving probes and wedge angles is the overriding factor in
the success of an inspection because of the quality of the ultrasonic signals. Overall, there must be
sufficient power and signal-to-noise to obtain signals from the region of interest (pointing to larger
diameters and lower frequencies), which must be balanced against the need for large beam spreads. The
effect of attenuation in the specimen also needs to be considered and balanced against the need for
adequate timing resolution.
C-11
6.16 Optimum theoretical PSDs for detection of diffracted signals from vertically
oriented planar flaws is a 120 included angle of the probe beam axes at the flaw
tip. However, a setting to focus the probes at two-thirds of the material thickness
with an included angle of 110 is suggested for initial D-scan examinations.
C-12
Equation C-1 is given for calculation of PSDs (2s) for initial D-scan setups to focus the beams at
two-thirds of the material thickness (t) on essentially flat surfaces:
2s = 1.33t(tan )
Equation C-1
Probe Separation Distance for Initial Detection D-Scans
Equation C-2 is given for calculation of PSDs for focusing at a specific depth (d), as may be used
for B-scans or evaluation D-scans:
2s = 2d(tan )
Equation C-2
Probe Separation Distance for B-Scan and Evaluation D-Scans
Equation C-3 is given for calculation of PSDs for initial D-scan setups to focus the beams at two-
thirds of the material thickness curved surfaces:
2s = 2(Ro)(sin )
where:
Ro = outer radius
d = depth at beam intersection point
= sin-1[(Rosin)/(Ro - d)]
=-
Equation C-3
Probe Separation Distance for D-Scans on Curved Surfaces
6.17 Select the digitization frequency consistent with the need to optimize the timing
accuracy to provide the appropriate amplitude resolution of 5 times the nominal
probe frequency with a minimum sampling rate of 2 times the probe frequency.
6.18 Select the high and low pass filter settings to give the best signal-to-noise ratio
while maintaining a minimum bandwidth between 0.5 and 2 times the nominal
probe frequency. Higher bandwidth ranges should be allowed if signal quality is
not degraded or signal-to-noise ratio reduced. Clipping is not permissible.
6.19 Select the pulse-width setting of the firing pulse to obtain a minimum number of
cycles with no more than 2 cycles or 4 half-cycles. This will maximize the time
(for example, depth resolution). Initial selection should equal 1 period of the wave
frequency (1/F). In practice, however, a probe produces a range of frequencies
(bandwidth) and the optimum pulse width should be determined by trial.
C-13
6.20 Set the signal averaging to the minimum value required to provide a reasonable
signal-to-noise ratio. Using a minimum averaging number also allows for faster
data collection speeds.
6.21 Set the timing gates to collect the portion of the analog A-scan wave form to
begin before the start of the lateral wave, include the longitudinal wave back wall,
and terminate into or just past the mode-converted L-S/S-L back wall responses.
In this manner, quantitative data for detection, sizing, and characterization are
captured as well as qualitative information regarding flaw type and location.
6.22 The pulse repetition frequency should be set as high as practicable to ensure that
A-scan waveforms are not missing in the collected data. The setting should match
or exceed the data collection speed.
6.23 Echo amplitude is not used quantitatively for determination of flaw size. The
normal amplitude-based calibrations associated with other UT techniques are
therefore not required. However, diffracted signals are often lower in amplitude
than reflected signals, necessitating sufficient gain levels to ensure that the TOFD
standing waves and diffracted signals are collected and displayed in the B-scan
image.
6.24 Experience has shown that the amplitude of diffracted signals generated at crack
tips depends on factors such as compressive forces on the crack face, crack
orientation with respect to the TOFD probes, the nature of the crack tip itself, and
the general noisiness of the material under examination. Each of these factors
often means that higher gain is required.
6.24.1 There are four suggested methods of establishing examination gain level
settings:
6.24.1.1 Representative flaw sample.
6.24.1.2 Diffracted signals from notches (for example, slits and

slots) using acoustically similar calibration blocks
containing upper surface-connected V or EDM slots. Width
should not be greater than 1/4 wavelength when using
EDM notches, while the maximum depth should not exceed
50% of the block thickness. Gain may be set to provide
signals from the bottom of the slots at approximately 60%
FSH.
6.24.1.3 Reflected signals from cross-drilled holes (for example,

side-drilled holes).
6.24.1.4 Material grain noise with the probe pair placed across the
weld and on the adjacent parent material. The gain level
may be set to an average noise level of 5 to 10% of FSH.
C-14
7 EXAMINATION
7.1 The examination test surface shall be free of irregularities, loose foreign material,
or coatings that might interfere with the ultrasonic signal integrity to the point of
test degradation. Any scans in which the lateral wave and/or back wall signals are
not maintained at significant and uniform levels are unacceptable and shall be
repeated. If the repeated scans are not acceptable, the unacceptable scan regions
shall be documented in the examination records.
7.2 All ultrasonic data collected for examination shall be traceable to an appropriate
reference point or zero-datum. For seam welds, this should generally be some
length reference point, for example, the downstream toe of the upstream
circumferential weld. For circumferential welds, this should be a specified
circumferential zero-datum reference point, for example, the outside radius of the
upstream elbow, the outside radius of the downstream elbow, top dead center, or
North. In all cases, the scan segments shall be marked on the component for use
in establishing the search unit position for the start of each scan and for verifying
comprehensive encoder operation over the full length of each scan. Reference
points used shall be recorded on the applicable examination data sheets.
7.3 Scans should be conducted over limited lengths, which provide relative ease of
scanning and produce images that can be readily interpreted. Extremely short
scans (typically less than 6 inches [152 mm]) should be avoided unless conditions
dictate. The scan start position should reflect the actual dimension relative to the
zero-datum rather than starting each scan at zero. Reported scan length should
reflect the actual scan length and not a scan length in excess of the actual, such
that the termination of the scan relative to the marked component can be used as
an ongoing check of the quality of the encoder engagement and the completeness
of the scan. Scan rate shall not exceed the point of data degradation contingent on
the key parameters employed.
7.4 Flaw type and location, weld joint geometry, and material thickness dictate to a
large degree the number of scans that should be performed to achieve full volume
coverage while ensuring that the flaws of interest are detected. If more than one
TOFD probe pair is required, each can be optimized in that the setups need not
have the same probe frequencies, diameters, and PSDs.
7.5 Centered D-scans shall be conducted along the length of the weld with the search
units straddling the weld and equally spaced on either side of the weld. In
addition, two offset scans, each with the 1/2-PSD point centered over the
clockwise and counter-clockwise weld toes, shall be performed. Care should be
exercised to maintain contact of the encoder over the entire scan. Any appreciable
slip of the encoder shall be cause to repeat the scan. The scan operator shall verify
that the scan is initiated at the marked start point and that it ends as the search unit
passes the marked end point.
C-15
7.6 All scan obstructions and/or limitations to the examination shall be reported in the
examination records.
7.7 For difficult, complex, or nonparallel geometrical shapes, scan plots may be used
to show beam coverage and incident wedge angles. In such cases, these coverage
plots shall be part of the examination records.
7.8 Couplant is to be applied either manually or with the aid of an automatic feed
system. In either case, the operator shall observe the recorded data standing wave
pattern to ensure that the appropriate standing wave responses are being received.
Areas that are determined to have insufficient coupling shall be reexamined after
more couplant is applied and/or the cause for the insufficient coupling is
determined.
8 RECORDING and EVALUATION of INDICATIONS
8.1 All digitized data from the gated region of the A-scan shall be permanently
recorded and stored for archival purposes. Length of archival storage shall be in
accordance with the contract and/or internal specifications.
8.2 All indications should be evaluated for depth, length, through-wall dimension
(height), and flaw type (typically parabolic or linear). Depth, length, and height
shall be evaluated using the calibrated parabolic cursor feature in the UT TOFD
system.
8.3 Additional UT TOFD examinations and/or conventional ultrasonic pulse-echo

examinations may be performed for the evaluation and characterization of
apparent flaw indications identified during the initial detection scans. Because the
position of the flaw is now approximately known, some of the requirements can
be relaxed (for example, wide beam spread) and parameters optimized to obtain
the most accurate results (for example, higher frequency, larger diameter, better
timing resolution, and closer PSD). The examinations shall be performed at the
discretion of the NDE data acquisition operator or data analyst. The evaluation
and characterization methodology shall include one or more of the following
techniques:
8.3.1 TOFD UT D-scans where the probe pair is offset to either side of the
weld. (This technique assists in the determination of the lateral location of
the flaw, for example, weld or side-wall/fusion zone.)
8.3.2 TOFD UT B-scans where the scan data were collected in the parallel mode
with the probes deployed in tandem, astride the weld, with scan motion
progressing across the weld width. This technique assists in the
determination of the lateral location of the flaw, for example, weld or side-
wall/fusion zone as well as nature of the flaw (longitudinal or transverse)
and the flaws through-wall extent. Note: This technique is extremely
sensitive to outside diameter transition changes, such as the presence of a
weld cap reinforcement, concavity, and adjacent transitional obstructions.
C-16
8.3.3 Manual or automated pulse-echo ultrasonic techniques using dual or single

element 0, 45, 60, and 70 focused or nonfocused beam probes to assist
in the characterization of the flaw. These techniques may include but are
not limited to:
8.3.3.1 Conventional 0 longitudinal wave straight beam
8.3.3.2 Conventional shear wave angle beam
8.3.3.3 Conventional refracted longitudinal wave angle beam
8.3.3.4 ID and OD creeping wave
8.4 Data analysis shall be performed by a UT Level II or Level III meeting the
personnel requirements described in Section 4 of this appendix.
8.5 If the presence of an internal or near-surface flaw is suspected, a postprocessing

lateral wave straightening and subtraction routine may be used to reveal the
underlying signals. Moreover, by reducing the probe separation, increasing the
incident wedge angle, and/or using higher frequency probes, much more of the
near surface region is available for analysis. Use of composite element probes
further reduces the width of the lateral wave, thereby spreading the effective
image depth range to provide the data analyst with additional information on the
remaining material volume and inner surface.
8.6 Any suspect indication(s) that appear crack-like or service-induced may be further
evaluated using additional examination techniques not described in this
procedure. All evaluation techniques applied for resolution of relevant indications
shall be fully documented in the report of results.
9 SIZING of INDICATIONS
9.1 Length sizing of indications is possible if the length is larger than the transducer
crystal diameter. If the indication has a length equal to or less than the transducer
crystal diameter, the indications will be as one parabola-like figure.
9.1.1 Depending on the type of indication, a technique shall be selected from the
following:
9.1.1.1 Technique for length sizing of linear indications: This type of

indication does not change position significantly in the
through-wall direction. A cursor, shaped to fit the arc produced
by a point flaw, is fitted to the echo from the indication. If the
flaw is linear and has a finite length, this will only be possible
at each end. The distance moved between acceptable fits at
each end of the indication is taken to represent the length of the
indication.
C-17
9.1.1.2 Technique for length sizing of parabola-like (parabolic)

indications: This type of indication does change position
significantly in the through-wall direction. A cursor, shaped to
fit the arc produced by a point flaw, is positioned at either end
of the indication at a time delay of one third of the indication
penetration. The distance moved between the cursor positions
at each end of the indication is taken to represent the length of
the indication.
9.2 Depth and through-wall height sizing of indications shall utilize the calibrated
parabolic-shaped cursor on the raw data in order to obtain accurate depth
estimates.
9.2.1 Depth shall be measured at the signal location nearest the scan surface at
the 1/2-cycle crossover point where the respective signal transitions from
the positive phase to the negative phase or vice-versa, regardless of phase
reversal.
9.2.2 The signal corresponding to the deepest point shall also be measured to
determine through-wall height.
9.2.3 For indications that exhibit phase reversal, the corresponding opposite 1/2-
cycle crossover points shall be selected.
9.2.4 For indications that exhibit no apparent through-wall height regardless of

phase reversal, the corresponding 1/2-cycle crossover point nearest the
scanning surface shall be selected. Indications with through-wall height
are those that contain 1/2-cycle signals exceeding the number of 1/2-
cycles that comprise the lateral wave.
9.2.5 For indications that exhibit no apparent through-wall height (regardless of

phase reversal) but vary in depth, representative points along the length of
the indication shall be obtained.
9.3 If calibrated cursor routines are unavailable, Equations A-4, A-5, and A-6 shall be
used to determine depth positions. They are given for flaws situated
symmetrically beneath the transmitting and receiving probes.
The distance traveled in millimeters between the probe pair is a function of flaw depth position
(d) and one-half the PSD (s), and equals:
2(s2 + d2)1/2
Equation C-4
Flaw Depth as a Function of Distance Traveled Between the Probe Pair
C-18
Therefore, to determine time (t) in sec along an A-scan to the flaw depth position, the ultrasonic
material velocity (c) in units of mm/sec must be known, and equals:
t = 2(s2 + d2)1/2/c
Equation C-5
Flaw Depth as a Function of Time in sec Along an A-Scan
Flaw depth can be expressed as a function of measured time by rearrangement of Equation C-5,
as given below:
d = [(ct/2)2 - s2]1/2
Equation C-6
Flaw Depth Position as a Function of Measured Time
10 ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION CRITERIA
10.1 The owner shall specify acceptance/rejection criteria.
11 REPORTING
11.1 All appropriate calibration and examination report data sheets shall be completed
by the examiner immediately following the applicable examinations. Data sheets
shall be prepared for each weld with the results documented and reported as NRI
(no relevant/reportable indications), RI (relevant/reportable indications), or SRI
(significant reportable indications). The reporting level is established based on the
judged severity of the detected indications and may be defined as follows:
11.1.1 NRI will be assigned to a weld or scan segment when no indications or

indications of typically little significance (for example, isolated point
sources) are identified.
11.1.2 RI will be assigned to a weld or scan segment when an indication or

indications of measurable size (singly, grouped, or clustered) are identified
and the characteristics of the indication or indications are not indicative of
a service-induced mechanism unless otherwise specified. Examples
include fabrication or welding flaws such as inclusions (grouped,
clustered, or aligned), porosity (grouped, clustered, or aligned), slag
inclusion lines, lack of fusion, lack of penetration, and generalized change
in graininess shown in the UT TOFD digital image.
11.1.3 SRI will be assigned to a weld or scan segment when an indication or

indications of measurable size (singly, grouped, or clustered) are
identified, when some or all of the characteristics of the indication(s) may
be related to a service-induced mechanism, and/or the number, size, and/or
location of the indication(s) in or adjacent to the weld warrants concern.
C-19
Typical indications include cracks, fabrication, or welding flaws that

exhibit other extending features characteristic of or associated with
cracking and localized change in grain structure or mottling shown in the
UT TOFD digital image. Such change(s) could indicate previous repair
zones, change in heat treat condition, or low-level damage potentially
associated with creep.
11.2 A summary report shall be compiled from the examination scans and analysis
results to document the ultrasonic inspection. The report summary shall contain
gray tone image printouts, which specifically display reportable indication
locations, and the following:
11.2.1 A description of the work performed
11.2.2 A diagram showing the location and orientation of each weld examined
11.2.3 A diagram showing the location of all relevant indications per piping
system
11.2.4 The acceptance criteria or standards used
11.2.5 A disposition, interpretation, and recommendation for all SRIs
11.2.6 Reference data used, if applicable
11.2.7 Calculations used, if applicable
11.2.8 Calibration and examination records
11.3 In addition to the documented reports generated, the recorded (digitized)

ultrasonic data collected during the examination shall be archived to an
appropriate media in accordance with the owners requirements.
11.4 Records shall be maintained in accordance with the owners requirements.
C-20
Figure C-1
Digitized A-Scan Slice Taken from the Cursor Position in the Corresponding B-Scan Image
Figure C-2
Effects of Signal Averaging
C-21
Figure C-3
B-Scan Data Collection Mode
Figure C-4
Depiction of the Process of Converting A-Scan Waveforms to a B-Scan Image
C-22
Figure C-5
D-Scan Data Collection Mode
Figure C-6
Digitization: Conversion of an Analog A-Scan Waveform Into a String of Numbers
C-23
Figure C-7
Unrectified A-Scan Waveform With Theoretical Phase Changes
Figure C-8
Pulse Width
C-24
D
AUTOMATED PHASED ARRAY EXAMINATION
PROCEDURE
1 SCOPE
1.1 This procedure defines the method and requirements for contact, automated
piezoelectric phased array examination of high energy piping longitudinal seam
welds using line/sector scans.
1.2 The procedure is applicable to longitudinal seam welds in high energy piping
ranging from 16 to 42 inches (406 to 1,067 mm) in outside diameter and having a
nominal wall thickness ranging from 0.5 to 2.50 inches (12.7 to 63.5 mm).
1.3 The objectives for the techniques described within this procedure are to detect,
length size, and depth size flaws commonly associated with seam welded high
energy piping. The procedure is applicable to discontinuities associated with the
fabrication process and cracking associated with service-induced, creep damage.
1.4 This procedure is appropriate for weld crowns that are flat topped, ground flush,
or in the as-welded condition.
2 REFERENCES
2.1 American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Recommended Practice SNT-TC-

1A.
2.2 Guidelines for the Evaluation of Seam-Welded High Energy Piping. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: September 1996. TR-104631.
3 DEFINITIONS
3.1 Array - a set of individually controlled ultrasonic transducers, or elements,

usually small and arranged in a regular pattern, that are operated in coordination
to produce a desired beam pattern.
3.2 Phased array - an array that is operated by fine control of the timing, or phase, of
excitation and/or reception for each array element.
3.3 Linear array - a one-dimensional array, resembling a conventional rectangular

transducer element that has been divided into a series of long, narrow elements.
D-1
Automated Phased Array Examination Procedure
3.4 Focal law - the set of instructions that controls an array to produce a desired beam
pattern or set of beam patterns. Contains, as a minimum, the timing of excitation
and reception for each array element.
3.5 Sector scan - the data image presentation (stacked A-scans) resulting from one
execution of a focal law containing more than one beam pattern.
3.6 Line scan - a type of transducer scan motion used in automated examination in
which the probe is moved parallel to the weld as data are being acquired, is then
indexed an incremental distance from the weld, and is scanned parallel again. The
distinction between the line scan and the more common raster scan is shown in
Figure D-1.
4 PERSONNEL
4.1 Personnel performing data acquisition shall have received documented training in
the use of the applicable ultrasonic examination equipment.
4.2 Personnel evaluating the results shall be certified to at least UT Level II or UT

Level III.
4.3 Additional requirements for qualification or certification of data acquisition or

analysis personnel, such as performance demonstrations, shall be at the discretion
of the Owner.
4.4 Personnel whose involvement is limited to mounting tracks, positioning the

automatic scanner, or verifying transducer position, etc., need not be certified.
4.5 Initial and final system calibrations shall be verified by a UT Level II or UT Level
III.
5 EQUIPMENT
5.1 Digital ultrasonic data acquisition equipment shall be used. The internal
pulser/receiver, multi-function board, and analog-to-digital converter are
considered key elements and shall be identified on the calibration data sheet.
5.2 Phased array search units used for detection, length sizing, and depth sizing shall
be certified and documented as to the center frequency and bandwidth. The
nominal frequency for the phase array probe shall be 2.5 to 5 MHz, and the
bandwidth shall be at least 50%.
5.3 Coaxial cables consisting of any number of intermediate cables not exceeding a
total of 250 feet (76.2 m) may be used for examinations.
5.4 An approved couplant shall be used and documented on the calibration and data
sheet.
D-2
6 SETUP and CALIBRATION
6.1 The digitizing frequency shall be at least three times the center frequency of the
array. If a waveform smoothing function is used, the digitizing frequency may be
reduced to a minimum of twice the arrays center frequency.
6.2 When scanning the seam weldment, the digitized metal path shall be at least 2.5
times the nominal pipe wall thickness.
6.3 For purposes of this procedure, focal laws shall be designed for steering
longitudinal wave beam angles in maximum increments of 1 and covering, as a
minimum, angles ranging from 30 to 80. Additional wave modes and angles
may be used at the discretion of the Level III.
6.4 Ultrasonic calibration blocks used for piping examinations shall be approved by
the Owner.
6.5 The calibration block temperature shall be within 25F (14C) of the component
to be examined. Calibration block and examination component temperatures and
the thermometer serial number shall be recorded on the calibration data sheet.
6.6 Calibration shall be performed and recorded prior to the start of any examination.
6.7 The acoustic velocity and delay may be established using at least two machined
reflectors in a specimen of the same material and product form as the component
to be examined. Examples of acceptable calibration blocks and reflectors include
1) IIW-2 or similar block, 2) the component calibration block, and 3) the
component itself.
6.8 Determination of beam index - Using the center angle of the focal laws, position
the search unit on an IIW block or equivalent so that the beam is directed toward
the appropriate radiused surface. Move the transducer parallel to the sides of the
block until a maximum signal amplitude response is obtained from the reflecting
surface. The beam index point is now located at the center of curvature of the
reflecting surface, which is indicated by a vertical scribe line on the side of the
block. Place a mark on the side of the search unit that corresponds with the scribe
line on the block to identify the actual index point. Note the measurement from
the index point to the front edge of the search unit for future reference.
6.9 Verification of beam angles - Using the center beam angle of the sector scan
range (55), position the search unit on the calibration notch block and obtain the
peak amplitude signal from one of the EDM notch reflectors. Using the known
depth of the notch and the corresponding metal path, calculate the beam angle. If
it is not within 2 of the nominal value, then the delay and velocity calibrations
should be repeated, and/or the focal laws should be checked and recalculated,
until the measured beam angle is correct.
D-3
6.10 Sensitivity Calibration
6.10.1 Using a beam angle of 45, the reference sensitivity shall be established on
the calibration block using the signal obtained from an approximately 3/4-
inch (19.05-mm) deep, 1/16-inch (1.59-mm) diameter side-drilled hole
(see Figure D-2). Adjust the maximum signal amplitude obtained from the
hole to 80% FSH.
6.10.2 Reference sensitivity shall be recorded on the calibration data sheet.
6.10.3 After consideration of scan time and acquisition rate, an extra channel
with a different gain setting may be included in the setup, if desired.
6.11 Calibration Confirmation
6.11.1 Calibration confirmation shall be verified at the start and finish of a series
of examinations.
6.11.2 Calibration may be verified on the standard reference block used for
calibration and the component to be examined.
6.12 All initial, intermediate, and final calibration and verification times shall be
recorded on the calibration data sheet.
7 EXAMINATION
7.1 The examination shall be performed from the outside surface of the component to
be examined. The surface shall be free of irregularities, loose material, or coatings
that interfere with ultrasonic transmission.
7.2 Scan Pattern
The examination will be conducted using a line scan technique as shown in Figure
D-1.
7.3 To ensure coverage of the weld volume and fusion zone, multiple line scans must
be performed from both sides of the weld at different probe offset positions with
respect to the weld centerline. Whenever weld surface conditions permit scanning
to be performed on the weld, the first line scan shall be performed with the probe
index positioned at the weld centerline. Subsequent line scans shall be performed
in increments of no more than 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). The last line scan shall be
performed sufficiently far from the weld that the 45 beam strikes the opposite
surface at the toe of the inside weld crown (see Figure D-3).
7.4 When it is not possible to scan on the weld surface, the first line scan shall be
performed with the front of the probe as close to the weld crown as possible while
D-4
still permitting an unimpeded scan. Subsequent line scans shall be performed in

increments of no more than 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). The last line scan shall be
performed sufficiently far from the weld that the 30 shear wave beam strikes the
outside surface at the toe of the outside surface weld crown (see Figure D-3).
7.5 During scanning, the maximum rate of search unit movement shall be 0.5 inch
(12.7 mm) per second unless a higher scan speed can be successfully
demonstrated.
7.6 Prior to the examination, check and verify that the appropriate signals are present
to indicate that the search unit is in proper contact with the scanning surface.
During the examination, A-scan and/or sector scan windows should be viewed on
the monitor screen to ensure search unit contact.
7.7 The zero reference for the direction transverse to the weld should be the weld
centerline. The zero reference for the direction along the pipe axis shall be
identified and recorded on the examination data sheet. All information necessary
to establish the position of the beam index relative to both the circumferential and
axial zero references shall be recorded on the examination data sheet.
7.8 Scanning Sensitivity
7.8.1 Two data channels should be used. One channel should be set at the
reference sensitivity plus 12 dB, and the other channel should be set to the
reference sensitivity plus 20 dB. If necessary, the sensitivity of a channel
may be adjusted so that nonsaturated data are available for depth sizing.
7.8.2 The scanning sensitivity will be recorded on the data sheet.
7.9 Supplemental scans may be needed to aid in the evaluation process. Instrument
adjustments, such as finer resolution settings or different gain levels, which might
enhance the examination data, should be considered prior to beginning any
supplemental examination.
8 RECORDING
8.1 The entire A-scan from the entry surface to the end of the time-base shall be
digitized and recorded.
8.2 Record all scan limitations on the examination data sheet.
D-5
9 EVALUATION
9.1 Data analysis shall be performed to determine if flaws are present within the
examination volume. When a flaw is identified, analysis shall also determine its
length and depth. During analysis, A-scan and sector-scan displays should be
reviewed as a minimum. B-scans, D-scans, and/or C-scans may also be useful.
9.2 Geometric Indications
9.2.1 Indications may be classified as geometric if the following conditions are

determined:
9.2.1.1 A uniform pattern of the indication is displayed throughout the

examination.
9.2.1.2 The indication corresponds completely with a known geometric

feature of the weld joint configuration.
9.2.2 Indications determined to be geometric shall be verified by using at least

one of the following:
9.2.2.1 Review of radiographs
9.2.2.2 Review of as-built drawings
9.2.2.3 Review of previous data
9.2.2.4 Review of cross-sectional plotting if additional data are acquired
9.2.2.5 Review of visual examination records
9.2.3 For indications determined to be geometric, record the indication length,

position in the weld length direction, and position in the weld cross-
section.
9.3 Nongeometric Indications
9.3.1 Indications may be classified as nongeometric if two or more of the

following conditions are observed:
9.3.1.1 A uniform pattern for a particular indication is not displayed

throughout the examination.
9.3.1.2 Indication is confirmed from the opposite direction (when

applicable).
D-6
9.3.1.3 A review of the factors identified in Paragraph 9.2.2 shows no

reason for geometric indications.
9.3.2 For indications determined to be nongeometric, record indication length,

position in the weld length direction, and determine the through-wall
depth of the indication.
9.3.2.1 Indication length shall be determined by measuring to the

endpoints of the indication. The endpoints are defined as the first
sector scans wherein the reflector is no longer discernible.
Indication length shall be measured using the scan line providing
the best signal response.
9.3.2.2 Alternatively, the indication length can be determined from the B-

scan of the angle at which the indication shows the best response.
In this case, the endpoints of the indication are defined as the
first and last points at which the reflector is no longer
discernible.
9.3.2.3 If scans are performed from both sides of the weld, length sizing
shall be determined by evaluating the flaw data from both
directions and using the most conservative length. If the flaw is
surface-connected, then length sizing shall be determined by
evaluating the flaw data from the near side only.
9.3.3 The following rules shall be observed in measuring indication depth:
9.3.3.1 Obtain a depth measurement from each sector scan in which an

indication is visible.
9.3.3.1.1 Indication depth shall be determined by identifying the

peak amplitude point of the tip signal in the sector scan
display, measuring its metal path, and noting the beam
angle. The perpendicular distance from the scan surface
to the flaw tip is approximately equal to the metal path
multiplied by the cosine of the angle of the beam.
Precise plotting accounting for the curvature of the pipe
should be used to determine a more accurate depth.
9.3.3.1.2 If the tip signal is not visible, then the angle at which
the amplitude of the indication is the greatest should be
noted. At this same position, decrease the angle in the
sector scan until the signal drops 6 dB. This will be
taken as one of the extremities of the flaw. At this same
position, increase the angle in the sector scan until the
signal drops 6 dB. This will be taken as the other
extremity of the flaw. If both metal paths are less than
or equal to the metal path to the inside surface, the flaw
D-7
height will be taken as the difference between the two

extremities. If either of the metal paths is greater than
the metal path to the inside surface, use the larger of the
difference between the extremities and the greater
difference between an extremity and the inside surface
as a conservative flaw height.
9.3.4 Supplemental scans or additional ultrasonic data may be needed to aid in

an attempt to accurately characterize the flaw type, for example, slag vs.
cracking. If required, the flaw sizes should be re-evaluated as determined
appropriate.
10 REPORTING
10.1 The calibration data sheet shall contain, as a minimum, the following information:
10.1.1 Calibration sheet number and date of calibration

10.1.2 Names of examination personnel and NDE level
10.1.3 Examination procedure number and revision
10.1.4 Calibration setup file name
10.1.5 Calibration block identification
10.1.6 Type, size, and surface of calibration reflectors
10.1.7 Ultrasonic instrument manufacturer and model number
10.1.8 Ultrasonic instrument basic settings
10.1.9 Applicable software revision
10.1.10 Focal laws calculation parameters
10.1.10.1 Software used to calculate focal laws, with revision number
10.1.10.2 Wedge angle
10.1.10.3 Wedge acoustic velocity
10.1.10.4 Component acoustic velocity
10.1.11 Focal laws - identification of all beam angles and modes
10.1.12 Search unit cable type, length, and number of intermediate connectors
10.1.13 Array probe parameters
10.1.13.1 Number of elements
10.1.13.2 Configuration (single/dual)
10.1.13.3 Wedge angle and velocity
10.1.13.4 Width of elements
10.1.13.5 Element spacing (center-to-center)
10.1.13.6 Frequency
10.1.14 Times of initial and final calibration and subsequent verification checks
10.1.15 Surface temperature and thermometer serial number
D-8
10.2 Examination data sheets shall contain, as a minimum, the following information:
10.2.1 Examination sheet number

10.2.2 Date and time period examinations were performed
10.2.3 Procedure number and revision
10.2.4 Ultrasonic examination equipment
10.2.5 Names of examination personnel and NDE level
10.2.6 Array identification and frequency
10.2.7 Identification of all focal laws - beam angle and mode
10.2.8 Information necessary for determination of search unit beam index
position for each recorded A-scan
10.2.9 Special equipment
10.2.10 Calibration sheet number
10.2.11 Identification and location of weld or volume to be examined
10.2.12 Surface and side of weld from which examination is to be performed
10.2.13 Identification of published demonstration performed in accordance with
Reference 2.3, or date, location, and witness of such a demonstration that
has been performed but is not yet published
10.2.14 Scanning limitations
10.2.15 Examination results
10.2.16 Component temperature and thermometer serial number
D-9
Figure D-1
Illustration of Raster and Line Scan Patterns
Figure D-2
Calibration Block With 1/16-Inch (1.59-mm) Diameter Side-Drilled Hole
D-10
Figure D-3
Performance of Multiple Line Scans
The last line scan shall be performed far enough from the weld that the 45 beam strikes
the opposite surface at the toe of the inside weld crown (point A), and the 30 shear wave
beam strikes the outside surface at the toe of the outside weld crown (point C).
D-11
E
ULTRASONIC FLAW SIZING PROCEDURE
Summary
The flaw sizing guidelines given in this procedure have been demonstrated successfully as one
possible way of combining planar flaw sizing techniques based on flaw tip diffraction. Other
combinations of the techniques more appropriate to a given situation may perform as well.
Using multiple flaw sizing techniques may be time consuming, however, the information
obtained through the application of multiple techniques will allow the examiner to determine the
flaw size with a greater degree of confidence. In fact, the use of complementing techniques may
be the only way to positively identify the flaw tip signal from other signals caused by weld
geometries, grain structures, etc. Ultimately, the techniques selected by the operator will be
determined by the surface and geometrical conditions of the weldment.
Purpose
This procedure provides guidance for estimating the size of surface connected and non-surface-
connected flaws in seam-welded steam line piping by means of manually performed ultrasonic
examination techniques.
Scope
This procedure is applicable to 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo and 2-1/4Cr1Mo hot reheat and main steam seam-
welded piping having a nominal wall thickness of 0.75 to 4 inches and containing indications of
flaws with known position.
Equipment
Ultrasonic Instrument
The ultrasonic instrument should be of the pulse-echo type, capable of generating and receiving
frequencies in the range of at least 1 to 5 MHz. The instrument should provide screen width
linearity within 5% of full-screen width.
Ultrasonic Search Units
E-1
Ultrasonic Flaw Sizing Procedure
Search units may be either single or dual element, producing shear waves or longitudinal waves
in the nominal frequency range of 1 to 5 MHz. Nominal angles in the range of 45 to 70 degrees
for shear and even higher for longitudinal waves have been shown to be successful. Various
search unit designs with different element sizes and arrangements can be used. It must be
pointed out that the individual search unit design parameters have great influence on their
effectiveness. For flaw tip diffraction methods using relative arrival time, highly damped (to a
maximum pulse length of two cycles at the 6 dB down points) search units are to be applied.
Calibration Blocks
The basic calibration block in accordance with the detection procedure should be used for
verifying location and extent of the flaw. It may also be used for sizing, especially if it is
provided with additional reference reflectors.
In addition to the basic calibration block, there is a need for additional blocks with or without
welds containing special reference reflectors, e.g., side drilled holes or notches in various depths
for calibration of the specific sizing methods. A 1 inch thick flat plate of similar material as the
component to be investigated, with notches from 10% deep to 90% deep in steps of 10
percentage points, should be used to calibrate the time base. Other block thicknesses might be
appropriate for specific sizing methods.
Figure E-1 shows a typical sizing calibration block consisting of a series of opposite surface
notches to be used for sweep distance calibration.
E-2
Figure E-1
Example of sizing calibration block.
E-3
Length Sizing Technique
Flaw length measurement is performed using the same technique that was used to detect the
flaw. Once the flaw is detected, the search unit is moved parallel to the flaw, maintaining the
signal on the instrument screen, until the signal disappears completely. The signal is followed
until it disappears into the ambient noise. The position of the center of the search unit is marked,
denoting one endpoint of the flaw indication. The process is repeated in the opposite direction to
locate the other endpoint. The separation between these two points represents the length of the
flaw.
Height Sizing Technique
Flaw height measurement is more complex and requires that the examiner be familiar with
various flaw sizing methods. The height measurement techniques based on a specific decibel
drop that have traditionally been used in similar ultrasonic applications have been abandoned for
the proven flaw tip diffraction techniques. These various flaw sizing methods are based on
certain physical principles of ultrasound and are described in the following sections.
Characterization of individual search units and their correct application are most important for
effectively sizing flaws.
High-Angle Longitudinal Wave Method
The high-angle longitudinal wave method is a sizing technique that is useful only for those flaws
that have extremities suspected to be near the contact surface. The principle of the high-angle
longitudinal beam is shown in Figure E-2. Ultrasonic longitudinal waves refracted at a high
angle are used to detect either diffracted waves from the tip of the flaw or reflected waves from
the near surface extremities of the flaw face. The pulse transit time indicates the ligament above
the flaw measured from the contact surface. This value is then subtracted from the local
thickness of the component to find the flaw height.
Depending on the selection of the search unit, the morphology of the flaw and the surface
geometry of the weldment, the accuracy of the height measurement may range from a very good
quantitative measurement to just a qualitative determination (a yes/no determination of whether
the flaw is large). Height determinations made by this method should always be confirmed using
a complementary method appropriate for flaws near the contact surface (i.e., the full-vee path tip
diffraction method).
The principle of this method relies on the insonification (i.e., the act of producing ultrasound in a
material) of only the outer skin of the pipe wall. This will determine whether the flaw has
propagated into this outer layer.
The effectiveness of sizing with high-angle longitudinal wave search units is strongly dependent
on selection of a search unit that produces a beam shape appropriate to the problem.
E-4
The shape of a high-angle longitudinal beam is strongly dependent upon several search unit
parameters such as frequency, element size, and element arrangement (roof angle, etc.). It is
essential to investigate the beam shape using known reflectors. Significant variations may be
experienced between search units having identical faceplate parameter values, even if they are
from the same manufacturer.
Either single or dual element search units may be used; however, it is difficult to eliminate
internal wedge reflections and entry surface noise when using a single element search unit for
high-angle longitudinal wave examination.
The refracted longitudinal beam is accompanied by a shear wave at about 30 degrees. This shear
wave is not used in this part of the sizing technique. Furthermore, it can be detrimental,
presenting the operator with high amplitude signals from irrelevant sources at the opposite
surface and potentially complicating the correct interpretation of longitudinal wave signals.
The application range of the high-angle longitudinal wave sizing method is shown in Figure E-3.
Full-Vee Path Corner Reflection
For very deep cracks that extend near the outer surface, a corner reflection at the full-vee path
position might be obtained similar to that at the half-vee path position. A part of the ultrasonic
beam is reflected at the crack face and is reflected via the outside surface back to the search unit.
The position of the outside surface reflection can be established by finger damping. The
application range of the full-vee path corner reflection technique is shown in Figure E-4.
E-5
Figure E-2
High-angle longitudinal wave beam
E-6
Figure E-3
Application range for high-angle longitudinal wave beams.
E-7
Figure E-4
Application range for full-vee path corner reflection.
E-8
Flaw Tip Diffraction Method
This method relies on the fact that, for some flaws, a portion of the energy striking the tip of a
flaw will be scattered by the flaw tip. This circumferentially scattered wave will find its way
back to the search unit. Through comparison between the time of arrival between the reflected
pulse and the scattered pulse, the height of the flaw can be derived. Although the flaw-tip
diffraction concept sounds simple enough, there are many other signals that can complicate
screen interpretation. Therefore, it is important that ultrasonic examiners using these techniques
be adequately trained to become familiar with tip diffraction techniques.
Variations of this method include its use at both the half vee and full vee paths. Through
application of the method at both vee paths, the method is effective for a broad range of material
thicknesses.
The principle of flaw tip diffraction is also applied in the high-angle longitudinal wave method.
The diffracted pulse signal is a low amplitude signal with respect to the primary indication. As
such, it is easy to miss entirely or to be confused with other signals on the CRT. Indications
from other than the flaw tip can be falsely called. If a unique tip-diffracted signal cannot be
identified by the operator, the flaw height should be measured by observing where the signal
starts to drop rapidly, indicating that the tip has passed through the central part of the ultrasonic
beam.
The principles of the flaw tip diffraction method are outlined in Figure E-5 and its application
range is shown in Figure E-6.
E-9
Figure E-5
Flaw tip diffraction method.
E-10
Figure E-6
Application range for the flaw tip diffraction method.
E-11
Calibration Method
Calibration for High-Angle Longitudinal Wave Method
Calibration is performed using a flat calibration block with reflectors placed at known depths
below the sound entry surface. Using a suitable calibration block design that contains deep
notches placed to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 inch below the entry surface, perform the following
steps:
The screen distance shall be such that full-screen width represents 1 inch of depth. With the
coarse range control set to the 0.5 or 1.0 inch setting, adjust the delay to display the main
bang at the left side of the screen.
Obtain a signal from the end of the calibration block with the index point placed very near
the block end. This will not be a corner reflection from the bottom of the block; it will be a
reflection from the top part of the end face. Verify that the correct signal is obtained by
finger-damping near the top of the end face.
Adjust the delay and range controls to place the main bang signal at 0 horizontal divisions
and place the end-of-block signal at 2 divisions. These settings put the range in proximity to
the eventual calibrated position.
Place the search unit index point directly above the calibration notch tip, 0.1 inch from the
examination surface. Move the search unit backward, slowly. First, one or more signals
from the shear wave component may appear. Continue to move back until a separate signal
appears. This will be the high-angle longitudinal wave signal. It can be recognized by the
fact that it usually travels along the CRT baseline more than the shear signals. When the
signal is maximized, visually verify that the search unit index point is in the proper position
to detect the reflector with a high beam angle. Adjust the delay and range controls to place
this signal at 3 divisions and the end-of-block signal at 2 divisions.
Obtain and maximize the high-angle longitudinal wave signal from the notch tip located 0.2
inch below the outside surface. Adjust the delay and range controls to place this signal at 4
divisions and place the signal from the notch tip located 0.1 inch below the surface at 3
divisions.
Continue with the other notch tips until they are too far from the examination surface to be
detected with a signal-to-noise ratio of at least 3. Increase instrument gain as necessary.
Noise at the extreme left and right sides of the screen will have no effect.
When measuring crack height from the weld crown using the high angle longitudinal wave
technique, the operator should use the confirming measurement from the pipe base metal. If the
weld crown is in the as-welded condition, it is still sometimes possible to couple adequately.
Some roughness can be tolerated if the crown is still nominally flat, but if the crown is too
rounded, coupling will be impossible. This method will also work for planar flaws within the
weld metal, provided that the weld crown surface is well prepared.
Calibration for Flaw Tip Diffraction Method
E-12
The flaw-tip diffraction method depends primarily on the arrival time of the flaw-tip signal and
in some cases on the arrival time of the crack opening signal, if applicable.
For the absolute arrival-time technique as shown in Figure E-7, use the following procedure to
calibrate the screen:
Select a suitable calibration block with at least two notches of known heights, bracketing the
flaw height range of interest.
Alternately peak the notch tip signals from a shallow and a deep notch while using the
material calibration and delay control knobs to adjust the arrival-time distance so that the
signals appear at the correct number of screen divisions from the left of the screen. The
screen should be calibrated so that the extreme left represents a through-wall flaw and the
extreme right represents a convenient dimension below the outside surface. Flaw height can
now be read directly. Note that the notch base reflection signals are not used at all.
The relative arrival-time technique, as shown in Figure E-8, may be used whenever the flaw is
open to the inside surface. In these instances, the following steps should be used to calibrate for
a direct flaw height reading:
Select a calibration block with at least two notches of known height. The notch heights
should bracket the range of interest to assure that the appropriate search unit is used.
E-13
Figure E-7
Absolute arrival time technique
E-14
Figure E-8
Relative arrival time technique
E-15
Obtain notch corner and tip echoes simultaneously as shown in Figure E-4. Once both
signals are present, keep the search unit stationary.
Use the material calibration control (fine range) to separate the signals on the screen and
obtain a convenient height/division scale. Keep the search unit position fixed; do not
alternately peak the signals. For example, using a 0.2-inch high notch, separate the peaks of
the notch base and tip echoes by one screen division. The screen is now calibrated for 0.2-
inch per screen division. The screen distance between the inside-surface reflection and the
flaw tip is a direct reading of flaw height.
The instrument delay position must display the doublet on the instrument screen but
otherwise is unimportant.
Size Determination
The various sizing techniques have certain limitations that prohibit their application to all sizes
of flaws. By understanding each technique in detail with its limitations, the techniques must be
combined to complement one another so that the operator is more confident of the flaw size
measurement obtained from several techniques than of a flaw size obtained from only one
technique. The methodology described in this procedure assumes that all of the necessary search
units are available to the operator to combine the techniques in the prescribed manner. The
extent to which complementary flaw sizing techniques may be useful in a field environment will
depend on the physical conditions of the weldment, the flaw morphology, and the search unit
selection. It must be stressed that whatever results are obtained, the operator still must confirm
them with a complementary technique.
Flaw height measurements are made at several locations along the flaw length in order to
increase confidence levels and to increase the chances of finding the largest point of the flaw.
In the case where two or more techniques produce different estimations of flaw height, the
operator must be knowledgeable enough to distinguish which technique is correct. This requires
the operator to understand the theory behind each technique as well as the limitations of each.
To provide optimum conditions for sizing, the weld crown shall be ground flush with the pipe for
the entire flaw length. Prior to attempting to size a flaw, the operator must first verify its
location, orientation, and extent. This is typically accomplished with the original equipment
used for detection. During this evaluation, it is also very important to determine whether the
flaw is surface connected or buried in order to choose the most appropriate sizing technique.
Flaws Connected to the Inside Surface
If it is determined that the flaw is connected to the inside surface, the following activities should
be accomplished in any order:
Search for evidence of a very deep flaw using:
- High angle longitudinal wave
E-16
- Full-vee path corner reflection

- Flaw-tip diffraction
NOTE: If evidence of a deep flaw exists, confirm with a complementary

technique and prove that a shallow flaw does not exist.
Search for evidence of a shallow flaw using flaw-tip diffraction techniques.
NOTE: If evidence of a shallow flaw exists, confirm with a

complementary technique and prove that a deep flaw does not exist.
Confirmation may also be achieved by a different angle of incidence or by the opposite
direction of incidence.
If two or more techniques give differing results, eliminate those results with lowest
confidence based on range of applicability or repeatability or result. If doubt still exists, take
the value which indicates the greater height.
Be aware of possible indications from weld fabrication flaws that can lead to significant
errors in reported measurements.
Flaws Connected to the Outside Surface
For flaws that are determined to be connected to the outside surface, the following activities
should be accomplished in any order:
Use high angle longitudinal wave techniques to identify crack depth.
Use full-vee path flaw-tip diffraction to confirm flaw depth.
Confirmation may also be confirmed by investigating the flaw from the opposite direction of
incidence.
Flaws Not Surface Connected
For flaws that are not connected to the inside or outside surface (i.e., buried flaws), it may be
possible to identify both the upper and lower flaw tips especially for vertical flaws. The
following sizing activities are recommended for buried flaws:
Search for evidence of flaw extremities using flaw-tip diffraction techniques.
NOTE: It is very important that this search be accomplished from two directions.
Search for evidence of a very deep flaw using high angle longitudinal wave and
full-vee path corner reflection.
If a diffracted tip signal is identified, attempt to confirm using a complementary technique or
by a different angle of incidence or from the opposite direction of incidence.
E-17
When a unique tip-diffracted signal cannot be identified by the operator, the flaw height
should be measured by observing where the signal starts to drop rapidly, indicating that the
tip has passed through the central part of the ultrasonic beam.
Recording
The techniques utilized, the greatest through wall dimension, the remaining ligament above
and/or below the flaw, and the flaw location for each individual flaw shall be recorded. The
height of a flaw should be verified by recording data from two directions and the use of multiple
techniques.
As a minimum, the following information should be recorded on the examination data sheet:
Data sheet identification and date and time period of examination
Names and certification levels of examination personnel
Examination procedure number and revision
Calibration sheet identification
Identification and location of the weld or volume scanned (for example, marked up drawings
or sketches)
Surface from which the examination is conducted; and
Examination results including search unit location, orientation, and basis for disposition shall
be recorded for each flaw indication.
Evaluation
All through wall measurements shall be evaluated and reported in accordance with the plant
specific requirements.
E-18
F
BID SPECIFICATION FOR EXAMINATION OF
SEAM-WELDED STEAM PIPING
CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 General Information .....................................................................................................F-4

1.1 Owner .................................................................................................................F-4
1.2 Project Location..................................................................................................F-4
1.3 General Description............................................................................................F-4
2.0 Bid Requirements and Instructions ...........................................................................F-4

2.1 Pricing ................................................................................................................F-4
2.2 Utility Contacts ...................................................................................................F-4
2.3 Site Visit .............................................................................................................F-4
2.4 Proposals ...........................................................................................................F-5
3.0 Scope of Services ........................................................................................................F-5

3.1 Objective ............................................................................................................F-5
3.2 Overall Scope .....................................................................................................F-6
3.3 Piping .................................................................................................................F-6
3.4 Final Report........................................................................................................F-6
4.0 Technical Requirements..............................................................................................F-7

4.1 Documentation ...................................................................................................F-7
4.2 Nondestructive Examinations .............................................................................F-7
4.2.1 Visual Examinations ............................................................................F-7
4.2.2 Magnetic Particle Examinations...........................................................F-7
4.2.3 Ultrasonic Examinations ......................................................................F-8
4.2.4 Locating Seam Welds..........................................................................F-9
F-1
Bid Specification For Examination of Seam-Welded Steam Piping
4.2.5 Weld Surface Preparation Prior to Testing ..........................................F-9

4.3 Metallographic Examinations (Replication) ........................................................F-9
4.4 Preliminary Report............................................................................................F-10
4.5 Final Report......................................................................................................F-10
5.0 Design Information ....................................................................................................F-11
6.0 Ultrasonic Calibration Block Design ........................................................................F-11
7.0 Schedule .....................................................................................................................F-11
8.0 Equipment and Services Rendered ..........................................................................F-11

8.1 Furnished by the Contractor .............................................................................F-11
8.2 Furnished by Owner .........................................................................................F-12
9.0 References..................................................................................................................F-12
10.0 Evaluation of Work Performed (Optional)................................................................F-12
F-2
1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 Owner
Name and mailing address of facility owner.
1.2 Project Location
Name of plant and unit designation.
1.3 General Description
A brief description of the station and turbine generator capacity.
2.0 BID REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS
2.1 Pricing
Each bidder is required to provide an all-inclusive lump sum quotation for the inspection part of
this bid package based on the scope of work defined in section 3.0 and an all-inclusive lump sum
quotation for the performance of field metallography (replication) based on performing five
replicas. The right to accept or reject all or part of these quotations is reserved.
2.2 Utility Contacts
A. Technical Contact
Name:
Phone:
B. Commercial Contact
Name:
Phone:
2.3 Site Visit
Each bidder is required to visit the site to review the physical scope of work. Arrangements for
the site visit can be made through the Technical Contact.
F-3
2.4 Proposals
A. Proposals are to be drawn in the name of the owner.
B. Bidders shall describe any possible nonconformance with the requirements of this
Specification.
C. Bidder shall submit with its proposal the procedures/methods it intends to employ in
performance of the work.
D. Bidder shall submit with its proposal the Resumes, Experience, and Certifications of the
personnel performing the work.
E. Bidder shall submit with its proposal the names of any subcontractors it intends to
employ in performance of the work.
F. Bid packages are due no later than _______ by _____ p.m.
G. Bidder shall submit with its proposal the Notice of Intent to Bid form. Proposals will not
be accepted for Bidders who submit their pricing on any other form.
3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
3.1 Objective
The owner's objective is, through the performance of inspections, to ensure the continued
integrity of the seam-welded steam pipe welds in order to sustain short and long term reliable
and safe operation of these piping systems. This specification provides detailed guidelines for
determining the condition of the welds, and for locating, identifying, and assessing any weld
discontinuities that may be present due to the original manufacturing processes or in-service
related conditions.
The principal objective of this specification is to ensure that all seam-welded steam pipe
inspections are performed in accordance with the technical requirements identified in this
specification and in the recommendations of EPRI Report TR-104631. It is vital that none of the
technical requirements required in either document be intentionally or unintentionally changed or
omitted by the subject Bidders without express written permission from the Owner's technical
representative.
F-4
3.2 Overall Scope
This specification encompasses the nondestructive examinations and testing, metallurgical work,
and material preparation required to determine the integrity of the seam-welded steam pipes
located at the ________ Station, Unit ____.
The Contractor is responsible for ensuring that the work performed under this specification shall
be performed in a thorough, professional manner and meets all local, state, and federal
environmental and safety codes and regulations.
Upon completion of the examinations and tests, the Contractor can make recommendations for
any necessary repairs, further testing, and any preventative maintenance actions as the Contractor
feels is necessary to preclude any incipient failures and to ensure the continued safe and reliable
service of the piping systems examined.
3.3 Piping
The Contractor shall review all applicable documents and perform plant walkdowns as necessary
to become familiar with the piping systems prior to commencement of the testing. The
Contractor shall then perform the tests and examinations on the seam welds as delineated in this
Specification.
Scaffolding, insulation removal and replacement, and weld and parent material surface
preparation at the locations to be examined and tested will be provided by the Owner.
3.4 Final Report
A final report shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Owner's Technical Contact that
contains, as a minimum, the information outlined in Section 4.4, summarizing the examination
and testing findings and recommending any necessary repair work and future measures to
support reliable, long-term, and safe operation of the examined piping systems.
NOTE: All background and technical information used to support recommendations included in
the final report must be available and supplied to the utility following the completion of the
workscope, if requested. Recommendations included in the report should not be based upon a
Contractor's proprietary codes, etc., which cannot be provided to the utility, if requested.
F-5
4.0 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Documentation
The Owner will supply piping drawings, previous piping inspection information, and other
pertinent design and operating information that is available to facilitate the work to be performed
by the Contractor.
4.2 Nondestructive Examinations
The Contractor shall perform visual, magnetic particle, and ultrasonic examinations on the seam
welds as indicated on the drawings in Section 5 of this specification.
Personnel performing the nondestructive examinations shall be qualified in accordance with

SNT-TC-1A, Level II or III for the appropriate inspection technique. Personnel qualification
verification shall be submitted to the Technical Contact at least 30 days prior to work
commencement.
Personnel performing the nondestructive examinations shall be familiar with the requirements set
forth for inspection methodology in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report TR-
104631.
Nondestructive examination and metallurgical replication procedures, including calibration and

data recording sheets, shall be submitted to the Owner at least 30 days prior to work
commencement.
The Contractor shall mark all suspect and known problem areas located during performance of
the examinations and tests and shall notify the Owner of these areas in order to facilitate further
examinations or repairs.
4.2.1 Visual Examination (VT)
Direct visual examination of the test areas and piping systems shall be performed in accordance
with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, Section V,
Article 9, and EPRI TR-104631.
4.2.2 Magnetic Particle Examination (MT)
Magnetic particle examination shall be performed in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code,
Section V, Article 7 and EPRI Report TR-104631. The wet fluorescent method shall be used
with an alternating current electromagnetic yoke having a minimum lifting power of ten (10)
pounds at the maximum pole spacing to be used. Two separate examinations of each area shall
be conducted using perpendicular magnetic flux and utilizing the continuous method of MT.
The areas to be tested shall include the weld, fusion lines on either side of the weld, a minimum
of four (4) inches on both sides of the weld, and shall have a sufficient examination overlap to
assure 100% coverage. Evaluation and acceptance shall meet the requirements of the
ASME/ANSI B31.1 Power Piping Code, Paragraph 136.4.3.
F-6
4.2.3 Ultrasonic Examination (UT)
Ultrasonic examinations shall be performed on the specified longitudinal seam welds from the
outside pipe surface. A straight beam examination shall be performed prior to performing the
shear wave examinations to verify no laminar reflectors are present which would impede the
subsequent shear wave examinations.
Examinations shall cover the complete volume of the weld metal, shall be performed from both
sides of the weld, and will initially use a 45-degree shear wave transducer, and then, either a 60-
degree, or a 70-degree, or both, shear wave transducers.
A 0-degree weld profile that includes thickness measurements shall be performed, as a
minimum, at each location where an ultrasonic indication is identified.
Ultrasonic test techniques shall be in accordance with EPRI Report TR-104631, Appendices B
and E and shall, as a minimum, include the following requirements:
a. Calibration performed on calibration blocks constructed in accordance with the drawing

furnished in EPRI TR-104631 and Section 6.0 of this specification. Notches used for
primary reference sensitivity must be 1/32 inch deep for thicknesses up to and including 1.75
inch. For thicknesses greater than 1.75 inch, 2% of thickness notches shall be used. Side
drilled holes must be 1/16 inch in diameter. Calibration blocks must be approved by the
Owner and calibration results shall be documented and included in the final report.
b. Scanning sensitivity shall be at least 14 dB above primary reference.
c. Scanning overlap shall be a minimum of 10% and scanning speed shall not exceed
6 inches per second.
d. Ultrasonic instruments shall be of the pulse-echo type with a minimum range of at least 1 to
5 MHz.
e. Shear wave examination shall be performed from both sides of the weld by directing the
ultrasonic beam perpendicularly into the weld to detect indications parallel with the weld.
f. All indications which produce a response 20% or greater of the reference level shall be
recorded and evaluated. Particular attention will be given to any indication lying on the weld
fusion line or near the root of double vee welds.
g. Ultrasonic sizing techniques shall be performed using tip-diffraction techniques. If a unique

tip signal cannot be identified, the flaw height may be measured by observing where the
signal starts to drop rapidly, indicating that the tip has passed through the central part of the
ultrasonic beam. Amplitude comparison techniques shall not be used for flaw sizing
determinations.
NOTE: As specified in Section 4.4 of this specification, the Contractor shall attest to
having followed all the technical requirements contained in this specification and the
inspection requirements of EPRI Report TR-104631.
4.2.4 Locating Seamed Welds
F-7
In the event that the longitudinal seam welds are not visually detectable on the spool pieces, it
should be determined whether the spool piece is seam-welded through the use of eddy current or
an acid etch.
4.2.5 Weld Preparation Prior to Testing
The Owner will provide adequate examination surfaces. As a minimum, weld crowns and a
minimum of four (4) times the piping nominal wall thickness on either side of the weld shall be
cleaned free of scale and oxide prior to the inspection and testing of the welds and adjacent
parent material. The Contractor will be responsible for ensuring that the examination surfaces be
completely free of oxide prior to commencement of the examination and testing.
4.3 Metallographic Examinations
The Contractor may be required to perform field metallographic examinations (replication) as a

supplement to the nondestructive examinations. Replication will be performed in accordance
with ASTM Standard E3, Methods of Preparation of Metallographic Specimens. The
Contractor's replication procedures shall be submitted to the Owner for review and approval.
Replica examinations shall be performed at locations as approved by the Owner. Where it is

applicable, the examination location at welds shall include portions of the weld, heat affected
zone (HAZ), and adjacent parent material.
Weld traverse hardness readings shall be performed at each replica examination location.
Hardness testing procedures shall be submitted to the Owner for review and approval.
The Contractor shall provide a preliminary on-site evaluation of the replicas prior to laboratory
analysis. The Contractor shall provide documentation in the final report by photomicrographs, a
description of the microstructure present for each replica, a creep stage assessment for each
replica, traverse hardness, and a duplicate of each replica taken.
Two photographs, at a minimum of 100x and 400x or greater magnification, shall be supplied for
each replica.
4.4 Preliminary Report
A preliminary draft report in conjunction with an oral report of all findings shall be provided to
the Owner before the Contractor leaves the site.
4.5 Final Report
The Contractor shall prepare and submit three (3) copies of a detailed examination report
discussing the work performed, results obtained, and recommendations for future actions. The
report shall include the location and orientation of unacceptable indications found by the
examination. Photographs, sketches, daily inspection log books, etc., shall be used as required
for a permanent record of the results.
The report shall be submitted no later than 30 days after the completion of the examinations.
F-8
The report shall contain, as a minimum, the following information:
a. A statement indicating that all the technical requirements contained in this

specification and the inspection requirements of EPRI Report TR-104631 have been
followed.
b. A description of the work performed.
c. A diagram showing the location and orientation of each weld tested.
d. A diagram showing the location and orientation for each replica taken.
e. A photomicrograph of each replica and a description of the microstructure including

a creep stage assessment and traverse hardness readings.
f. Photomicrograph of each replica shall have on the same page a photomicrograph

depicting the weld, HAZ base material.
g. A diagram showing the location of all indications found by the examinations for
each NDE method and piping system.
h. Location and orientation of the longitudinal seam weld within each pipe or spool
segment.
i. An assessment and recommendation of all indications found.
j. Reference data including indication plots, etc.
k. All calculations.
l. All calibration sheets.
m. All thickness readings recorded and mapped.
n. A recommendation on when the next inspection interval should be scheduled within

the scope to be examined.
5.0 DESIGN INFORMATION
5.1 Reference Drawings
Hot Reheat Piping - (Attach as Required)
5.2 Pipe Sizes
See Table F-1.
5.3 Design and Operating Conditions

See Table F-1.
5.4 Number of Welds and Inspection Areas
F-9
Attach as required.
6.0 ULTRASONIC CALIBRATION BLOCK DESIGN
See Drawing in Attachment 1.
7.0 SCHEDULE
The Contractor shall submit a schedule for the scope of work to be performed. The schedule
shall be based on working one ten (10)- hour shift per day and completing the work scope in five
(5) days. The schedule shall include a summary of the Contractor's proposed man-power
including number and qualifications of personnel to be used.
8.0 EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES RENDERED
8.1 Furnished by the Contractor
The Contractor shall furnish all personnel, supervision, materials, equipment, safety and
protective equipment, calibration standards, lights, etc., for the examination and testing work as
outlined in this specification. The Contractor shall be responsible for the disposal of all cleaning
agents, sand, etc., utilized in the performance of the scope of work.
The Contractor shall assure a neat, clean work area is maintained on a daily basis.
8.2 Furnished by Owner
The Owner shall provide a station representative to act as a liaison between the Contractor and
the Owner for all work performed.
In addition, the Owner shall provide restroom facilities, electric power, air (100 psig), drinking
water, plant data as needed, temporary scaffolding, insulation removal and surface preparation of
areas to be examined.
9.0 REFERENCES
9.1 EPRI Report TR-104631.
9.2 ANSI/ASME B31.1 - 1992
9.3 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code - Section V - Nondestructive Examination.
9.4 EPRI TR-101835 Assessment of Seam-Welded Steel Piping in Fossil Power Plants.
9.5 ASTM Standard E-3 Methods of Preparation of Metallographic Species.
9.6 Copies of all Previous Inspection Reports.
10.0 EVALUATION OF WORK PERFORMANCE
F-10
The Owner has an evaluation program in place whereby both the Contractor and the Owner are
candidly evaluated for their respective performance. The Contractor will be rated on job
organization; supervision of personnel; work performed including adherence to safety
regulations; and the equipment furnished by the contractor. Evaluation forms may be obtained
by the Contractor upon arrival at the site.
Note: This section is optional.
F-11
Table F-1
Design and Operating Conditions
Design Conditions Operating Conditions
Piping Pressure Temp. Pressure Temp. Material Nominal Nominal

System Spec. Diameter
PSIG F PSIG F (Inches) Wall Thick.
(Inches)
Main 2725 1050 2347 1034 A335P22 18 OD 3.25

Steam Full
Flow A365FP22 7.19 ID 2.25
Reheat 550 1000 230 974 A155 Cl. 1 20.318 ID 0.766

Steam Full
Flow @ 1/54 Cr. 18.438 ID 0.711
A155 Cl. 2 20 1.9
2 1/3 Cr.
F-12
Figure F-1
Basic Calibration Block Design
F-13
F-14
G
CRACK GROWTH CALCULATION PROCEDURE
Procedure
The recommended crack growth calculation procedure requires using the BLESS-Pipes module
of the EPRI BLESS (Boiler Life Evaluation and Simulation System) Code, version 4.0.
Equivalent crack growth calculation procedures and methods may be used provided the cyclic
effects on creep and the materials properties are as described below and in the text of
recommendations in Section 6. Below is an example of an analysis illustrating the procedure
when using BLESS (-Pipes) 4.0.
Example Case
Component: 1-1/4Cr1/2Mo Seam-Welded Steam Pipe
Pipe OD = 20 in.
Pipe ID = 18.5 in.
Crack Depth = 0.05 in. at midwall location
Single repeated cycle of operation
Operating Pressure = 488 psig
Operating Temperature = 1000F
Hold-time (cycle-duration) = 700 hrs.
BLESS 4.0 Procedure

Double click on the BLESS-Pipes icon
Click on OK button on the title screen
Click on OK button on the copyright screen
Select Units command from the Edit Menu and click on US Customary Units. Click on OK
button to exit from the Units Dialog box.
Select Analysis command from the Edit Menu
Select Deterministic Analysis
G-1
Crack Growth Calculation Procedure
Enter 300000 for the Max. Evaluation Time

Enter 4 in the Ct multiplier box
Click on OK button to exit from the Analysis Dialog box
Select Geometry command from the Edit Menu
Select Crack Orientation: Axial
Select Crack Type: Continuous
Select Location: Buried
Enter Pipe OD=20, Pipe ID=18.5, a=0.05, Uncracked ligament=0.35
Click on OK button to exit from the Geometry Dialog box
Select Operating Data command from the Edit Menu
Click on Creep-Fatigue button
Click on the box Exclude Primary Creep
Click on row 1 under column Pressure, and enter 488
Click on row 1 under column Temperature, and enter 1000
Click on row 1 under column Hold Time and enter 700
Click on OK button to exit from the Operating History Dialog box
Select Materials Data command from the Edit Menu
Click on the pull-down list at the bottom of the screen and select Material Number 1
Click on OK button to exit from the Materials Data Dialog box
All the data have been provided to BLESS-Pipes
Click on Calculate Menu and proceed with the calculation
BLESS-Pipes will display the progress of the calculation and then display the detailed output
on the screen.
Select Print Output Option from the Results Menu to print the output on the printer
connected to your PC.
Select Plot a vs. time Option from the Results Menu and then press Preview button to plot
the results.
Figure G-1 is a summary of the typical output file generated from the following example:
1-1/4Cr1/2Mo Seam-Welded Steam Pipe. OD = 20 in. ID = 18.5 in. Analysis for a midwall
crack of 0.05 in. depth
Single repeated cycle of operation (one operating procedure):
Ramp-up: 0-10 hrs, 100-1000F, 0-488 psig, Flow rate=5000.
Steady-state: 10-710 hrs, 1000F, 488 psig, Flow rate=5000.
Ramp-down: 710-720 hrs, 1000-100F, 488-0 psig, Flow rate=5000.
G-2
Solution Description: Creep-fatigue crack initiation & growth

FLAW TYPE: AXIAL - CONTINUOUS - SUBSURFACE
FRACTIONAL DEPTH BELOW SURFACE: .50
Crack Depth = .050
a/w for terminating calculations = 1.00000
Note the key material properties constants that have been input:
A1000 (median), n (creep), Q-prime, creep coeff. C (median), creep exp., q. Note that [A1000
(median)]= A [exp (Q-prime/1460)], for A as defined in Eq. (1-4),
creep coeff. C (median) = C3 as defined in Eq. (1-1), and
creep exp., q = q as defined in Eq. (1-1).
Also, note that the code now does not include an oxide effect in estimation of crack growth. The
oxide effect has been retained only in the crack initiation prediction phase, of no relevance to the
seam-welded pipe evaluation procedures provided here.
G-3
Figure G-1
Summary output file from a BLESS crack growth calculation applied to a subsurface seam
weldment crack.
BLESS-Pipes version 4.0

Title: Sample Case
Thursday, July 21,1994 08:22 AM
Units Selected = US Customary Units
Crack and Pipe Dimensions in inches
Pressure in psi
Axial stress in ksi
Temperature in degrees F
Crack growth rates in in/hour, in/cycle
Time in hours
Deterministic Analysis using:
Mean + 0.000 Std. Dev. for S1000

Mean + 0.000 Std. Dev. for P1000
Mean + 0.000 Std. Dev. for Fatigue Crack Growth Coeff.
Mean + 0.000 Std. Dev. for Creep Crack Growth Coeff.
Multiplier of 4.000 on Ct Input via Analysis dialog box
Maximum Simulation time (hrs) 200000.00

Crack orientation - Axial
Crack type - Continuous
Crack location - Buried
Pipe OD = 20.000
Pipe ID = 18.500
Crack Depth, a = 0.0500
Uncracked ligament from ID = 0.3500
Actual R/t of Pipe = 12.33
Material Properties ID 10:problem 5,6,7 - material 6

Secondary Creep Coeff (ref) = 1.120E-13 = Aexp(-Q/1460) in Eq. 1-4
Primary Creep Coeff (ref) = 1.000E-27
Secondary Creep Exponent = 8.000 = n in Eq. 1-4
Pr. Creep Exponent (m) = 5.660
Pr. Creep Exponent (p) = 0.820
Q-prime = 82432.000 = Q in Eq. 1-4
Second Parameter (Sref) = 2.000
Second Parameter (Pref) = 2.000
Primary/Secondary Corr. Coeff= 0.000
Fatigue Coeff. (median) = 5.200E-07
Fatigue Exponent = 2.870
Creep Growth Coeff (median) = 4.674E-02 = median value of C3 in Eq. 1-1
Creep Growth Exponent = 0.737 = q in Eq. 1-1
G-4
Figure G-1 ......continued
Second Parameter (Cfatigue) = 0.170

Second Parameter (Ccreep) = 1.030
Elastic modulus = 2.460E+04
t_sub_pl = 3.800E-02
Poisson's ratio = 0.300
Primary Creep Excluded
Cycles Temperature Pressure Hold time (hrs) Axial Stress
1 1000.00 488.00 700.00 .00
a time(hrs) Ct, Ctavg da/dt
0.05194 7.0000E+02 1.79E-07 1.39E-06
0.05395 1.4000E+03 1.87E-07 1.43E-06
0.05603 2.1000E+03 1.96E-07 1.48E-06
0.06038 3.5000E+03 2.14E-07 1.58E-06
0.06267 4.2000E+03 2.23E-07 1.63E-06
0.06747 5.6000E+03 2.44E-07 1.74E-06
0.06999 6.3000E+03 2.55E-07 1.80E-06
0.07529 7.7000E+03 2.79E-07 1.92E-06
0.07807 8.4000E+03 2.91E-07 1.99E-06
0.08095 9.1000E+03 3.05E-07 2.06E-06
0.08701 1.0500E+04 3.35E-07 2.20E-06
0.09021 1.1200E+04 3.51E-07 2.28E-06
0.09695 1.2600E+04 3.87E-07 2.45E-06
0.10052 1.3300E+04 4.07E-07 2.55E-06
0.10808 1.4700E+04 4.53E-07 2.76E-06
0.11211 1.5400E+04 4.80E-07 2.87E-06
0.11631 1.6100E+04 5.08E-07 3.00E-06
0.12531 1.7500E+04 5.76E-07 3.29E-06
0.13016 1.8200E+04 6.17E-07 3.46E-06
0.14066 1.9600E+04 7.13E-07 3.85E-06
0.14638 2.0300E+04 7.73E-07 4.09E-06
0.15900 2.1700E+04 9.22E-07 4.66E-06
0.16600 2.2400E+04 1.02E-06 5.00E-06
0.17357 2.3100E+04 1.13E-06 5.40E-06
0.19079 2.4500E+04 1.43E-06 6.43E-06
0.20070 2.5200E+04 1.63E-06 7.08E-06
0.22400 2.6600E+04 2.18E-06 8.79E-06
0.23794 2.7300E+04 2.58E-06 9.96E-06
0.27276 2.8700E+04 3.88E-06 1.34E-05
0.29556 2.9400E+04 5.04E-06 1.63E-05
0.32490 3.0100E+04 7.10E-06 2.10E-05
0.44133 3.1500E+04 2.52E-05 5.32E-05
0.66551 3.2200E+04 1.13E-04 1.60E-04
0.75000 3.2900E+04
Failure: crack is through-wall
Thursday, July 21,1994 08:22 AM
Example of Sensitivity of Remaining Life to Initial Crack Size

Figure G-2 below summarizes the sensitivity of the crack size to the calculated remaining life for
the example case described in Figure G-1. The example is only provided to illustrate potential
G-5
decreases in the time-window for reliable inspection, should the inspection procedure used be a
less sensitive (higher detection threshold) alternative to the recommended one.
Figure G-2
Example of sensitivity of remaining life estimate to initial crack size for the example case
of Figure G-1.
G-6
H
STRESS RUPTURE TESTING
One of the techniques widely used for life assessment of homogeneous components involves
removal of samples and conducting accelerated tests at temperatures above the service
temperature on uniaxially loaded specimen. The data are plotted on a temperature versus time-
to-rupture plot as illustrated in Figure H-1. An estimate of the remaining life is made by
extrapolation of the results to the service temperature. In applying these results for component
life prediction, several uncertainties arise.
There is uncertainty in the method of calculating the stress, especially for thick-wall components.
The ASME formulation correlating the results of burst tests with uniaxial stress-rupture life is
subject to considerable scatter. The appropriate equivalent stress calculation, whether on the
basis of Von Mises, maximum shear, maximum principal, or other possible governing stress
criterion may depend on the material, temperature, stress, and stress state. The uncertainty in
calculating the stress in a boiler tube is estimated to be on the order of 15%, which can influence
calculation of expected life by about a factor of two. Temperature gradients in thick-walled
components and stress redistribution by creep render the stress estimations even more difficult.
Cyclic service can further contribute to life reductions due to creep-fatigue interaction in a
manner that cannot be simulated in accelerated uniaxial stress rupture tests.
Additional uncertainties arise in the case of weldments. Stress redistribution in a weldment is

more complex in view of the number of zones present with differing creep properties. Presence
of material inhomogeneities and inclusions, presence of weak zones and stress concentration
factors can localize the damage to specific interfaces or zones causing crack growth rather than
bulk creep damage and rupture. The manner in which these influences are felt in a component
under service conditions is often different from what happens in accelerated tests on uniaxial
specimens. This is the reason why in laboratory tests it is often difficult to simulate the field
failures in terms of failure location.
There has also been much debate regarding the effect of specimen size on rupture life. In
homogeneous materials, the dominant effect of specimen size is in terms of environmental
effects. In general, larger the specimen, longer the life. It has also been shown that when
oxidation correction factors are applied, data for different specimen sizes can be made to
coincide [H-1, H-2]. It is also possible to simulate large section size behavior in air by testing
miniature specimens in inert environments (e.g., [H-3]).
Rupture life can be affected via constraint effects both imposed by the specimen size and due to
the V geometry of the weld. These effects are illustrated with the help of Figure H-2. The
constraint effect arising purely from size effects irrespective of the weld geometry is shown in
Figure H-2a. The composite specimen consists of a strong base metal, a weak (i.e., in creep)
weld metal zone and a low ductility heat affected zone. When specimen size remains small, such
H-1
Stress Rupture Testing
as in specimen A, the stress state throughout the specimen tends to be uniaxial. Failure tends to
be controlled by creep deformation and hence likely to occur in the weld metal which is weaker.
Failure is also accompanied by considerable necking. As the specimen size increases and
approaches the full dimensions of a HRH pipe (e.g., specimen B), creep deformation in the weld
is constrained by the bulk of the surrounding base metal, resulting in a triaxial state of stress.
Failure of the specimen is no longer governed by deformation, but by the strain capability or the
ductility under plane strain conditions. If the weld metal is sufficiently ductile, then failure
would occur in the heat affected zone (instead of the weld). In this scenario, as specimen size
increases, the time to rupture in a smooth bar specimen will increase and the failure location will
be shifted from the creep weak zones to creep brittle zones. The same scenario applies
where the fusion line interface replaces the HAZ as the brittle zone, due to the presence of
impurities and inclusions. In a typical Mohave type seam welded sample with a creep weak
base metal and a fusion line interface with aligned inclusions, rupture time will increase with
specimen size and the failure location will shift from weld to the HAZ to the fusion line with
increasing time to rupture.* Although a trend of increasing life with increasing size is expected,
no quantitative correlation can be established between rupture lives of small and large specimens
since the sensitivity to specimen size will vary with the specimen geometry (i.e., h/w ratio for
any given zone), the test conditions (stress, temperature) the creep strength ratios of the different
zones and the ductility of the different zones (extent of inclusions, impurity segregation, etc.).
In the case of the double V or X weld configurations (Figure H-2b), additional complications
arise due to local concentration of stresses at the cusp region, which increases with increasing
cusp angle and the ratio of the min/max width of the weld bead, as shown by, for example,
Stevick and Finnie [H-4] and Wells [H-5]. The stress concentration acts as a metallurgical
notch and can cause early initiation of cracking along the fusion line at the cusp region. This
effect may produce an effect of specimen size that is more complex. If the fusion line represents
a brittle interface containing large concentration of inclusions, an early crack initiation/rapid
propagation scenario will render larger specimens prone to more rapid failure compared to
smaller specimens. On the other hand, if the fusion line interface was clean and did not offer a
susceptible path for crack propagation, the overall rupture life may still be governed by failure at
these locations but the life may increase with increasing size. Through-wall damage gradients
also make small (sub-section) specimens less likely to contain the damage level representative of
the entire section.
It is obvious from the foregoing discussion that the effect of specimen size on rupture life is very
complex and depends on many factors. There is very little data pertaining to specimen size
effects in weldments especially those in which the fusion line can be a weak zone. Since the
mechanism of failure (stress controlled in small specimens vs. strain controlled in large
specimens) itself, and the failure location can change with specimen size, no simplified
procedures exists to predict large specimen rupture life based on small specimen tests.
* These conclusions apply only to smooth bar rupture tests. Increase in rupture life with increasing
specimen size is mainly due to delay in crack initiation, since the shear strain/hydrostatic strain ratios
become smaller with increased size. In notch bar specimen or where pre-crack exists, rapid crack
propagation and hence shorter lives may be achieved with increasing specimen size.
H-2
Limited comparisons between 0.078 in. (gage diameter) specimens and 0.375 in. (standard) cross
weld specimens by Saxena et al. [H-6] using weldments from Monroe HRH pipe, failed to reveal
any specimen size effects. Similar conclusions were reached by Lundin et al. who compared the
rupture lives of specimens with 0.125 to 0.75 in. gage diameter [H-7]. In a more systematic
study, Prager evaluated specimens of 0.19 in., 0.35 in., 0.5 in., 0.75 in. and 1.25 in. [H-8]. Test
conditions were selected to preclude oxidation effects. In both normalized and tempered and
subcritically post-weld heat treated specimens, rupture lives significantly (factor of 2 to 4)
increased with increasing size in conformity with similar findings by Henry, Ellis and Lundin
[H-9]. In most of these cases the failures did not simulate the fusion line (FL) failures. In one of
the tests where the FL failure was indeed simulated using ex-service piping, the rupture life of
the large specimen (1.25 x 0.625 in.) was still 50% higher compared to the standard specimen
[H-8]. Results from more such tests are needed before precise correction factors for specimen
size effects in weldments can be developed. Available evidence shows however that use of
standard or subsize specimens provide conservative (pessimistic) remaining life estimates. As
long as the limitations of such tests are recognized and the data is used for qualitative guidance
in the manner prescribed, the specimen size question can be deferred until further results become
available.
Stress rupture test results, however, have been the basis of creep-limited pressure boundary
component design. As such, rupture tests still provide an indication of the relative performance
in service versus that predicted by the original design basis. Indeed, this study examined the
field experience in light of the (ASTM/ASME) design curves, and concluded that, while
limited quantitative life predictions could be made from rupture test results, the instances of field
cracking and failure all showed that a minimum rupture life-fraction expenditure (LFE) could be
defined as a conservative threshold below which failures may not be expected. This threshold
has been used as a criterion triggering a guidelines-required inspection. In cases where a pipe
weldment-specific measure of LFE is called for, recommendation is given to perform stress
rupture testing on cross-weld specimens from an as-removed sample of the weldment to get a
more reliable indication of whether an inspection is needed.
In cases where stress rupture tests are useful, they should be conducted at a constant stress close
to the service stress, at differing temperatures (the isostress method). For the longitudinal welds
in steam pipes, samples should be taken such that the gage length includes base metal, weld
metal, and the fusion line. Inclusion of the cusp region material is desirable since these regions
are likely to contain the most damaged material [H-10, H-11]. The isostress method of Figure H-
1 is the recommended method, although, where sample material is limited, however, a single-
specimen approach may be used.
The isostress test (Figure H-1). At least three tests are conducted, each at a unique temperature
exceeding the operating temperature (temperature-acceleration) to produce rupture in a time
exceeding 500 hours. The remaining life, trem, is estimated by extrapolation of the linear fit to
the log t - T data (T = test temperature, t = test time) to the steady-state operating temperature.
The LFE is then estimated as top/(top + trem), where top is the accumulated operating time.
Single-specimen test. Use of a single-specimen test approach is based on the assumption that the
isostress (stress equal to the operating stress), temperature-accelerated test produces a rupture
time with a Larson-Miller parameter (LMP) value characteristic of the material condition. The
H-3
assumption is equivalent to one that uses a linear log t - 1/T relation, consistent with the Larson-
Miller parameter representation of the ASTM curves. This LMP value, LMP*, can then be used
to estimate remaining life by
LMP*
20
trem = 10 T
where T is the operating temperature in R, and LMP* = Ttest[20+log10t] for Ttest = test
temperature in R, and t = test rupture time.
The LFE is then estimated as top/(top + trem), where top is the accumulated operating time. A
desired test rupture time should exceed 500 hours.
Table H-1 provides a summary of stress rupture studies conducted on service-exposed seam-
welded piping. The consensus seems to be that these stress rupture data fall below the ASTM-
minimum rupture curve or below the base metal data obtained from the same pipe. Table H-1
also provides the reader useful guidance on the range of stress levels and temperature levels
utilized for these tests. Unfortunately, most of these tests did not simulate field failures (i.e.,
failure at fusion line for the cases considered). Since extended test durations carry a greater
likelihood of simulating service failures, tests should be conducted to give at least rupture lives
exceeding 500 hours. Extrapolation of lower duration tests is not likely to be useful or accurate.
References
H-1. Moles, M.D.C., and Westwood, H.J., Residual Life Estimation of High Temperature
Superheater and Reheater Tubing, Report for the Canadian Electrical Association Research and
Development, RP78-66, March 1982.
H-2. Electric Power Research Institute, Unpublished Research on Project RP8046-04, 1994,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
H-3. Final Report on EPRI RP2253-01, Volume 2, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
H-4. Stevick, G.R., and Finnie, I., Failure Assessment of Weldments at Elevated
Temperature, Proc., 6th International Conference on Mechanical Behavior, Kyoto, Japan, June
1991.
H-5. Wells, C.H., On the Life Prediction of Longitudinal Seam Welds in Hot Reheat Piping,
Proc., 1986 EPRI Conference on Life Extension and Assessment of Fossil Plants, Washington,
D.C., R.B. Dooley and R. Viswanathan, eds., Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
H-6. Liaw, P.K., Saxena, A., and Schaefer, J., Estimating Remaining Life of Elevated
Temperature Steam Pipes, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 32, No. 5,
p. 675, 1989.
H-4
H-7. Lundin, C.D., Khan, K.K., Yang, D., Hilton, S., and Zielke, W., Failure Analysis of a
Service Exposed Hot Reheat Steam Line in a Utility System Plant, Welding Res. Council, Bull.
354, June 1990.
H-8. Prager, M., Issues in Assessment of Chrome-Moly Welds, in Serviceability of

Petroleum, Process and Power Equipment, ed.; D. Bagnoli, M. Prager and D.M. Schlader,
ASME PVP Vol. 239, MPC Vol. 33, 1992, pp. 253-265.
H-9. Henry, J.F., Ellis, F.V., and Lundin, C.D., The Influence of Flux Composition on the
Elevated Temperature Properties of Cr-Mo Submerged Arc Weldments, WRC Bulletin 354,
Welding Research Council, New York, NY, June 1990.
H-10. Cullen, T.M., Examination and Testing of Longitudinal Seam Welded Hot Reheat
Piping, EEI Prime Movers, New York, May 1986.
H-11. Testimony of Dr. William E. Cooper before the Public Utilities Commission of the State
of California, May 1992, Exhibit No. 5, Southern California Edison 011
86-04-002.
H-12. M. Jakubowski and J.A. Bennett, One Utilitys Experience and Methodology For
Condition Assessment of Chrome-Moly Seam-Welded Pipe, August 1993.
H-13. High Energy Piping Studies at PP&L Bruner Island, Unit 2, EEI, July 1992, Dallas.
H-14. S.M. French and R.L. Miller, Life Assessment of Hot Reheat Longitudinal Seam Weld,
Homer City, Unit 2.
H-15. P.K. Liaw, G.V. Rao, and M.G. Burke, Creep Rupture Behavior of 2-1/4Cr-1Mo Welds
From a 31 Year Old Fossil Power Plant, Materials Science & Engg., A 131 (1991) pp. 187-201.
H-16. Marschall, C.W., Jaske, C.E., and Majumdar, B.S., Assessment of Seam-Welded Steel
Piping in Fossil Power Plants, EPRI TR-101835, Final Report on Research Project 2596-11,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, December 1992.
H-5
Figure H-1
Plot of accelerated creep rupture test results for header specimens (illustration of
isostress method).
H-6
Figure H-2
Schematic illustration of constraint effects due to specimen size potentially affecting
cross-weld stress rupture tests.
H-7
Table H-1
Summary of Creep/Rupture Tests on Ex-Service Seam Welded Piping
H-8
I
EPRI COMMONLY USED UNITS -
CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
For calculation purposes, convert British units to SI by combining the quantity in British units
by one or more fractions of the form M/B, each fraction consisting of the number and units in
column M divided by 1 of the unit in column B. Each such fraction (including their units) is
unity; when you combine the fractions together the units should cancel, leaving a result in SI
units only.
British unit (B) Metric equivalent (M)

bar = 100 kPa
cubic inch (in3) = 1.6387 E-5 m3
degree Fahrenheit (F) = (F-32)/1.8 degree Celsius (C)
degree Rankine (R) = 0.5556 K
foot = 0.3048 m
ft-lbf (torque) = 1.356 J
inch = 0.0254 m = 25.4 mm
in-lb/in2 = 0.1765 kJ/m2
ksi = 6.895 MPa
lbf = 4.448 N
lb/ft3 = 16.018 kg/m3
pound (mass) = 0.4536 kg
psi = 0.06895 bars
Adapted from American National Standards Institute ANSI Z210.1-1976/ASTM E 380-93/IEEE

Std 268-1976.
I-1
Program: SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTI-
Boiler Life and Availability Improvement Program TUTE, INC. (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE WRAPPING MATERIAL.
BY OPENING THIS SEALED PACKAGE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO
THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT,PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED PACKAGE TO EPRI AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL
BE REFUNDED.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE
EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this package only for your own
benefit and the benefit of your organization.This means that the following may use this package: (I) your company (at any site owned
or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or other related entities; and (III) a consultant to your company or related entities,
if the consultant has entered into a contract agreeing not to disclose the package outside of its organization or to use the package for
its own benefit or the benefit of any party other than your company.
This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement between most U.S.EPRI mem-
ber utilities and EPRI.Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility License Agreement may get one on request.
2. COPYRIGHT
About EPRI This package, including the information contained in it, is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is protected by United States
and international copyright laws.You may not, without the prior written permission of EPRI, reproduce, translate or modify this pack-
EPRI creates science and technology solutions for age, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare any derivative work based on this package.
the global energy and energy services industry. U.S. 3. RESTRICTIONS
electric utilities established the Electric Power You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this package to any person or organization, or use the information contained in this
package, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unless such use is with the prior written
Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research permission of EPRI.You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of this package. Except as speci-
consortium for the benefit of utility members, their fied above, this agreement does not grant you any right to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks or any other
intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of this package.
customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI,
4.TERM AND TERMINATION
the company provides a wide range of innovative This license and this agreement are effective until terminated.You may terminate them at any time by destroying this package. EPRI has
products and services to more than 1000 energy- the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you fail to comply with any term or condition of this agreement.
Upon any termination you may destroy this package, but all obligations of nondisclosure will remain in effect.
related organizations in 40 countries. EPRIs
5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers
NEITHER EPRI,ANY MEMBER OF EPRI,ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING ON BEHALF
draws on a worldwide network of technical and OF ANY OF THEM:
business expertise to help solve todays toughest (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE
OF ANY INFORMATION,APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE, INCLUDING
energy and environmental problems.
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
EPRI. Electrify the World INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTYS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS
PACKAGE IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERS CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSE-
QUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS,
METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE.
6. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this package, and you agree not to
export or re-export this package or any related technical data in any form without the appropriate United States and foreign gov-
ernment approvals.
7. CHOICE OF LAW
This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place entirely in California
between California residents.
8. INTEGRATION
You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement between you
and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. No waiver, variation or different
terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior written consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.
2003 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights

reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered
service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America
1004329
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

EPRI Guidelines For The Evaluation of Seam Welded High Energy Piping PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EPRI Guidelines For The Evaluation of Seam Welded High Energy Piping PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Guidelines for the Evaluation of

Seam-Welded High-Energy Piping

embedded in the document prior to publication.

Please read the License Agreement

Final Report, December 2003

EPRI Project Manager

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

This report was prepared by

This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

Although the need for a comprehensive summary of the state-of-knowledge on seam-welded

E. Martinez, EPRI NDE Center, contributed to the assessment of the EPRI-recommended

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... S-1

1 INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATIONS ...............................................................1-1

2 TECHNICAL BASES FOR GUIDELINES ..............................................................................2-1

3 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH TO PIPE EVALUATION .........................................................3-1

5 INSPECTION METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................5-1

Data Acquisition and Analysis ........................................................................................5-27

6 SERVICEABILITY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................6-1

A CRACKING AND FAILURE EXPERIENCE ......................................................................... A-1

B ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION PROCEDURE..................................................................... B-1

Basic Calibration Block.................................................................................................... B-4

C TIME-OF-FLIGHT DIFFRACTION EXAMINATION PROCEDURE ...................................... C-1

D AUTOMATED PHASED ARRAY EXAMINATION PROCEDURE........................................ D-1

E ULTRASONIC FLAW SIZING PROCEDURE....................................................................... E-1

F BID SPECIFICATION FOR EXAMINATION OF SEAM-WELDED STEAM PIPING .............F-1

G CRACK GROWTH CALCULATION PROCEDURE ............................................................. G-1

H STRESS RUPTURE TESTING ............................................................................................. H-1

I EPRI COMMONLY USED UNITS - CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS........................................I-1

Figure 1-1 Schematic showing primary cracking/damage locations observed in piping

Objectives and Scope

3. Survey of industry inspection practices and their adequacy.

6. Reports on improved inspection technologies. Introduced in Section 5, acoustic emission

Benchmarking of laboratory data-based crack growth predictions against several reported

Limitations of the Guidelines

Other Research and Development

Organization of the Guidelines

The Guidelines document is organized into 8 major sections and 9 appendices.

Section 1 summarizes the Industry Experience and Observations, particularly data on

How to Use These Guidelines

Industry Experience and Observations

Adequacy of the EPRI-recommended conventional ultrasonic examination procedure [1]:

Incidents of Cracking and Failure

Industry Experience and Observations

Industry Experience and Observations

representative of those in service (this mainly relates to the material/metallurgical variables

Industry Experience and Observations

S1 220 1962-79 120,000 1000 488 20/0.74 6.35/6.5 HRH Rupture

S2 220 1962-92 212,000 1000 488 20/0.74 6.35/6.5 HRH Leak

P1 326 1960-85 1000 484 17.75/0.81 5.06/6.5 HRH pipe Major

F 745 1970-86 101,000 1000 600 30/1.4 6.13/6.5 HRH Major

N 163 1963-86 1015 525 HRH pipe Major

K 200 1965-86 1010 465 HRH pipe Major

P2 220 1967-86 NR 1000 1800 NR Main Steam Line Leak

Industry Experience and Observations

U -1997/ 955 575 27/0.9 A155 Gr11 HRH Clamshell Rupture

B3 446 1955-1998 Baseload A387 Gr22 Main Steam Minor Cracking

G3 161 1957-1996 Load- 1000 1800 Main Steam Minor Cracking

SP -1996 14/3 Gr22 Main Steam Leak

H5 500 1967-1998 Cyclic 18/2.75 A387 Gr22 Main Steam Rupture

Industry Experience and Observations

CO2 13 1961-1996 Cyclic A387 Gr22 Main Steam Minor Cracking