Final Report 03-280 PTR Reactors

February 6, 2004
Henry Prez
Petrleos de Venezuela, S.A.
El Palito Refinery
Venezuela
Reference: Fitness-For-Service Assessment PTR Reactors

Capstone Project Number: 03-280
Summary
Capstone Engineering Services was requested to remove scoop samples from the shell section of
reactor D-2002 located at the PTR Unit in El Palito Refinery, Petrleos de Venezuela, S.A.,
Venezuela. The purpose of this project was to determine mechanical properties of the base metal
and heat affected zone of the shell section in order to conduct a fitness-for-service evaluation
based on current mechanical properties. The evaluation was based on the procedures specified by
the recommended practice on Fitness-For-Service API RP 579.
The microstructure of the samples obtained from the reactor D-2002 was found to be normal,
although several small linear indications were observed with optical microscopy. These surface
cracks have been detected in previous inspections. Follow up to their propagation is
recommended as well as analysis of their origin. The chemical composition of the base plate and
welds was in accordance with the specifications for construction.
The Charpy impact energy test results indicated that the brittle-ductile transition temperature is
below 13F. The lower bound fracture toughness was obtained from this temperature using API
RP 579 correlations.
Safe pressure-temperature envelopes for the PTR Reactor were developed in this fitness-for-
service assessment considering current operating and design conditions. They should be used for
start-up and shut-down procedures. Crack-like flaw tolerance curves for different pressure-
temperature combinations (pressure-temperature envelope) were prepared. Figures 1 and 2 show
the results for operating and design conditions. Fracture Tolerance Signature (FTS) curves
(limiting flaw size versus temperature) were also constructed.
A limiting crack depth a of 25% the nominal wall thickness was established using a safety of
factor of four (4). This assumption allows a conservative analysis reducing the risk of a
catastrophic failure due unstable crack propagation, with a high confidence level of detection
using UT and/or Acoustic Emission.
Prepared by
Antonio Seijas Anelsy Mayorga

Consultant II Consultant II
Approved by
Tim Munsterman
Engineering Technology Manager
1505 Highway 6 South, Suite 250 Capstone Engineering Services, Inc. Phone (281) 493-2236
Houston, Texas 77077 www.cap-eng.com Fax (281) 493-5161
Fitness-For-Service Assessment PTR Reactors
Capstone Project No. 03-280 Page iii February 6, 2004
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
2. SCOOP SAMPLES AND METALLOGRAPHIC EVALUATION........................................ 2
2.1. Sample Removal............................................................................................................. 2
2.2. Metallographic Examination .......................................................................................... 2
2.3. Chemical analysis........................................................................................................... 2
3. API RP 579 FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY......................... 3
3.1. Methodology for crack-like flaw assessments................................................................ 3
3.2. Methodology for brittle fracture assessment .................................................................. 3
4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 5
4.1. Chemical Analysis.......................................................................................................... 5
4.2. Charpy V-Notch (CVN) Testing .................................................................................... 5
4.3. Level 1 Brittle Fracture Assessment............................................................................... 6
4.4. Level 2 Assessment Brittle Fracture Assessment........................................................... 7
4.5. Level 3 Brittle Fracture and Crack-like Flaws Assessments .......................................... 8
4.5.1. Stresses:...................................................................................................................... 9
4.5.2. Flaws .......................................................................................................................... 9
4.5.3. Mechanical Properties - Fracture Toughness ........................................................... 10
4.5.4. Limiting crack size or crack-like flaw tolerance curves........................................... 11
5. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 13
6. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 13
11777 Katy Freeway, Ste 570 S Capstone Engineering Services, Inc. Phone (281) 493-2236
Fitness-For-Service Assessment of PTR Reactors
Capstone Project No. 03-280 Page iv February 6, 2004
List of Figures
Figure 1: Samples Removed from D-2002, as-received. The direction of the top of the reactor is
marked on each sample. ................................................................................................ 14
Figure 2: The four samples removed after macro-etching. The weld and base metals are clearly
distinguishable in Samples 2 and 3. .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 3: Linear Indications were observed in Sample 2.............................................................. 15
Figure 4: Micrograph of one of the linear indications detected in Sample 2. ............................... 15
Figure 5: Typical Failure Analysis Diagram (FAD) ...................................................................... 16
Figure 6: Typical Crack-like Flaw Tolerance Curves.................................................................... 16
Figure 7. Charpy V-notch test values. Regression plot 95% confidence bands, PTR Sphere D-
2002. ............................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 8: Minimum Allowable Metal Temperature For Pressurization without Impact Testing. . 17
Figure 9: Reduction in Minimum Design Metal Temperature based on Available Excess
Thickness. ..................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 10: Pressure Temperature Envelope for the Shell Material PTR Reactors at current
conditions...................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 11: Pressure Temperature Envelope for the Shell Material PTR Reactors at design
conditions...................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 12: Idealization of a surface crack...................................................................................... 19
Figure 13: Damage tolerance curves PTR Reactors. Cracks in base metal. Maximum pressure:
310 psig......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 14: Damage tolerance curve PTR Reactors. Cracks parallel to welds. Maximum pressure:
310 psig......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 15: Damage tolerance curve PTR Reactors - Cracks perpendicular to welds. Maximum
pressure: 310 psig. ........................................................................................................ 21
Figure 16: Damage tolerance curve PTR Reactors. Cracks in base metal. Maximum pressure: 650
psig................................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 17: Damage tolerance curve PTR Reactors. Cracks parallel to welds. Maximum pressure:
650 psig......................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 18: Damage tolerance curve PTR Reactors. Cracks perpendicular to welds. Maximum
pressure: 310 psig. ........................................................................................................ 22
Figure 19: Fracture Tolerance Signature (FTS) PTR Reactors. Maximum pressure: 310 psig. ... 23
Figure 20: Fracture Tolerance Signature (FTS) PTR Reactors. Cracks in base metal. Maximum
pressure: 650 psig. ........................................................................................................ 23
Figure 21: Acoustic Emission Minimum Detectable Flaw Size For Pressure Vessel Shells......... 24
Capstone Project No. 03-280 Page 1 February 6, 2004
1. INTRODUCTION
Capstone Engineering Services was requested to remove scoop samples from the shell
section of reactor D-2002 located in the PTR Unit at El Palito Refinery, Petrleos de Venezuela,
S.A., Venezuela. The samples were removed during a turnaround in November of 2003. The
vessel was designed and built in 1958 according to the ASME Code, Section VIII, Division 11,
and it is part of a three reactor arrangement in a platformer unit. The material of construction is
C-Mo steel according to specifications SA 204 Grade A. Table 1 shows the main
characteristics of the PTR reactors.
The purpose of this project was to determine mechanical properties of the base metal and
heat affected zone of the shell section ion order to conduct a fitness-for-service evaluation based
on current mechanical properties.
The analysis was based on the procedures specified by the recommended practice on Fitness-
For-Service API RP 5792.
Table 1: Design, operating, and construction data for D-2001, D-2002, and D-2003 reactors
Year of design and fabrication 1958
Design Code ASME Code, Section VIII, Division 1
Operating capacity 9500 BPD
Fluid Hydrotreated Naphtha and Hydrogen
Fluid Conditions 200 psig hydrogen partial pressure @ 980F
Size 12-0 ID
PWHT Yes
Radiography Yes
Joint Efficiency 95%
Shell Material SA-204 Grade A (C Mn Mo)
Design Code. ASME Code. 1963
Double layer refractory system: inner HW LI insulated
Cladding / Lining
refractory and outer hexsteel. Internal SS 321 shield
Design Pressure 650 psig @ 550F
Operating Conditions 310 psig @ 250F (wall temperature)
MAWP 750 psig @ atmospheric temperature
MAWP 350 psig @ design temperature
Original Shell Thickness 1-11/16"
Shell Corrosion Allowance 0.160
2. SCOOP SAMPLES AND METALLOGRAPHIC EVALUATION
2.1. Sample Removal
The removal of test samples was done using Capstones Scoop Sampler. The cavity left
after removal of the samples does not affect equipment integrity and does not need to be weld
repaired. Five (05) scoop samples were removed from the shell of the reactor. Four of them were
removed from the internal surface and one from the external surface. Table 2 summarizes the
location and dimensions of the samples removed. One of the scoop samples was retained by
PDVSA. The remaining four samples, as received in the laboratory, are shown in Figure 1.
2.2. Metallographic Examination
The scoop samples were macro-etched (Figure 2) to reveal the location of the welds and
therefore define the location for V-Notch specimens. During this activity, linear indications were
detected in the weld metal of Sample 2 (Figure 3). Although not a part of the original scope of
work, these indications had to be characterized. The presence of cracks would have a great
impact in the results of the mechanical tests. Figure 4 shows a micrograph of sample 2 at a
magnification of 200X. The microstructure is mostly ferritic, corresponding to a weld metal. The
indications observed in the sample were fairly shallow and were all located in the weld metal.
Sub-size Charpy V-Notch (CVN) specimens were machined and tested at various
temperatures to determine the current fracture toughness of the material. The sample removed
from the external surface was too small and therefore was unusable for Charpy testing purposes.
The three samples available from the internal surface provided information about equatorial and
meridian welds, and about the base metal.
2.3. Chemical analysis

The chemical composition of the weld and base metals were determined from coupons removed
from sample 2.
Table 2: Scoop Samples taken from D-2002

Depth
Sample Weld Surface Radius (mm) Charpy Specimens
(mm)
Circumferential
1 Internal 23 3.16 x 3.27 Retained by client
Weld
Circumferential
2 Internal 24 3.32 x 3.24 8
Weld
3 Meridian Weld Internal 20 3.23 x 3.10 8
4 Base Metal Internal 24 2.98 x 2.94 6
5 Meridian Weld External 7.5 1.97 x 1.88 Unusable
3. API RP 579 FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
3.1. Methodology for crack-like flaw assessments
Damage tolerance analysis, based on Fracture Mechanics, involves the assessment of the
effect of crack-like flaws on the structural integrity of a component. The guidelines to evaluate
crack-like flaws are established in the Section 9 of the recommended practice API RP 579, and
are based on the relationship between crack-like flaw dimensions (length and depth), applied
stress field (magnitude and orientation), and material characteristics (fracture toughness and
mechanical properties). The failure of a component can occur when a superficial or embedded
flaw presented in a material with defined fracture toughness, under a specific stress field, reach a
critical size. If the applied stress field and the material properties are known for specific
operating conditions, the critical or maximum permissible flaw size can be determined using
fracture mechanics. Once a flaw reaches the critical size there is a risk of unstable fracture.
In order to complete a damage tolerance analysis for a specific discontinuity, the Failure
Assessment Diagram (FAD) is used. Figure 5 shows a typical FAD. The relationship between
two parameters, namely, Load Ratio (Lr) and Fracture Ratio (Kr) is plotted. For a given
component carrying a flaw, the Fracture Ratio (Kr) is the ratio of the Stress Intensity Factor (KI)
to the materials Fracture Toughness (KIC). The Load Ratio (Lr) is given by the ratio of the load
over the cracked zone and the yield load on the same zone. The area below the curve corresponds
to the safe zone while the area above the curve represents the failure area. When a flaw is
evaluated, its intrinsic Lr and Kr values are plotted in the FAD. If the corresponding data point
falls in the failure area, the flaw is considered unacceptable because failure by unstable crack
propagation, plastic collapse, or a combination of the two mechanisms is anticipated.
When information of crack-like flaw dimension is not available, for instance before an
inspection or non destructive evaluation, damage tolerance curves can be generated by means of
Fracture Mechanics to determine if an equipment is fit for service in the event that crack-like
flaws are detected. In these curves combinations of the limiting crack depth (a) vs. crack length
(2c) are plotted, for specific material properties and operating conditions (Figure 6). The
resulting graph shows two regions: Cracks that fall in the region below the curve are acceptable
with a chance that they grow in service. Therefore, future monitoring and/or more detailed
evaluation are required. Cracks that fall in the region above the curve are unacceptable by the
criterion. In this case, corrective actions are required (refine analysis, re-rate, repair or replace).
3.2. Methodology for brittle fracture assessment
The approach for the assessment of existing equipment for brittle fracture established in the
Section 3 of the recommended practice API RP 579 is based on the comparison of the Critical
Exposure Temperature (CET) with the Minimum Design Metal Temperature (MDMT). If the
CET of the material is less than the MDMT, there is a risk for brittle fracture. The purpose of the
assessment is to screen for the propensity for brittle fracture consistent with ASME Code Section
VIII design philosophy. It is intended to prevent the initiation of brittle fracture; however, it does
not ensure against cracks resulting in leakage, or ensure arrest of a running brittle fracture. Once
crack like flaws are found, they should be evaluated according to fracture mechanics procedures.
The Critical Exposure Temperature (CET) is defined as the lowest process or atmospheric
temperature at which the equipment metal will be exposed to a given stress under either normal or
upset conditions. For pressure vessels, the CET is the minimum metal temperature at which the
component is subject to a general primary membrane tensile stress greater than 8 ksi. The CET
may also be defined as the minimum metal temperature at which the vessel will be subject to a
pressure greater than 40% of the Maximum Allowable Working Pressure (MAWP) for vessels
designed according to the ASME Code Section VIII Division 1. It is derived from the anticipated
process and atmospheric conditions. The CET may be a single temperature at an operating
pressure or an envelope of temperatures and pressures, e.g. vapor pressure curve for LPG streams.
The Minimum Design Metal Temperature (MDMT) may be a single temperature, or an

envelope of acceptable operating temperatures as a function of pressure. With this definition, the
MDMT permits consideration of lower than design pressure conditions and is derived from
mechanical and materials design data.
API RP 579 methodology uses a three level assessment approach. If the acceptance criteria
in one level are met, there is no need to go to the next assessment level. A summary of this
approach is as follows:
Level 1 is the simplest procedure and is intended to be used for equipment that meets
recognized toughness standards. This level typically requires only a review of existing
equipment records.
Level 2 assessment procedures for pressure vessels are divided into three methods:
- Method A: equipment may be exempt from further assessment if it can be shown that the
operating pressure/temperature is within a safe envelope with respect to component
design stress and minimum acceptable temperature.
- Method B: equipment may be qualified for continued service based on a hydrotest,

possibly in combination with acoustic emission testing.
- Method C: equipment may be qualified for continued service based on materials of

construction, operating conditions, service environment and past operating experience.
Level 3 Assessment will normally involve a more detailed evaluation, using fracture
mechanics procedures. The factors that control the susceptibility to brittle fracture, stress,
crack-like flaw size, and material toughness, are systematically evaluated.
The determination of the CET considers the following situations:

The lowest one-day mean atmospheric temperature, unless a higher temperature is specified
(e.g., specifying a minimum required startup temperature and coincident pressure).
The lowest temperature under normal operating conditions.
Startup, shutdown, upset conditions, standby, pressure tightness testing, the possibility of
future field hydrotest.
Potential for autorefrigeration due to depressurization, either during operations or due to
equipment failure (e.g., a safety relief valve sticks open).
Shock chilling; the CET should not be higher than the temperature of the liquid causing the
shock chilling.
It is understood that the wall temperature during normal operating conditions of the PTR
Reactors is approximately 256 F. Startup and shutdown conditions were not specified.
Therefore, the CET for the reactors is equal to the lowest one-day atmospheric temperature,
equivalent to a cold morning in the Venezuelan coast, and it is around 60 F. This is a
conservative value considering the weather conditions in Venezuela.
4. RESULTS
4.1. Chemical Analysis
Table 3 summarizes the results of the chemical analysis conducted on the weld and base
metal of Sample 2. The chemical composition corresponds to the expected for the material of
construction of the reactors (A204 Gr A).
Table 3: Chemical Analysis from Sample 3.

Element (wt%)
Location
C Si Mn Cr Mo Ni P S
0.18 0.13- 0.98 0.41- 0.035 0.040
SA_204-A - -
max 0.45 max 0.64 max max
Base Metal 0.16 0.24 0.70 0.12 0.51 0.30 0.010 0.018
Weld 0.10 0.46 1.08 0.07 0.54 0.10 0.012 0.022
4.2. Charpy V-Notch (CVN) Testing
The results of the Charpy tests for the sub-size specimens are shown in Table 4. The
corresponding full size result is twice the value reported in this table. The base metal specimens
were tested at 0, 32 and 70F. The heat affected zone specimens from samples 2 and 3 were
tested at -20, 0, 20 and 70 F.
In fitness for service analyses, a 15 ft-lb ductile-brittle transition temperature is

generally used to estimate the materials fracture toughness. For the base metal, a clear trend
could be observed indicating a reduction of the impact energy as the temperature was decreased.
A linear regression analysis with confidence bands was applied to the CVN data (Figure 7). The
transition from ductile to brittle could be assumed to be the point corresponding to 15 ft-lb. The
straight line in this chart represents the best fit of impact energy as a function of the testing.
temperature, while the curved lines on both sides of the straight line define the 95 % confidence
upper and lower limits. The statistical approach used accounts for possible variation due to
experimental error. It means, for instance, that if many impact tests are repeated at any given
temperature, the result will be 95% of the cases within these confidence limits. It also means that
a 15 ft-lb impact energy could be obtained when testing at any temperature between -3.9 F and
13 F,. For the purpose of this analysis, the more conservative limit is assumed, which is 13F.
In the case of the heat affected zone samples, samples 2 and 3 in Table 4, no tendency of
brittleness with decreased temperature could be clearly established. This means that a plot of
impact energy as a function of temperature would not render a definite trend. Hence, the data
was subject to an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to verify if there were significant differences in
the results between the results obtained at different temperatures. The statistical analysis revealed
that there was not any significant differences in impact energy values between samples 2 and 3
and that there was not a significant variation among the results obtained at different temperatures.
None of the results obtained for the heat affected zone sample was below the reference limit of 15
lb-ft, an indication that even at -20 F, the material was still behaving in a ductile manner. In
view of these findings, it was decided to use the base metal transition temperature as a reference
for this fitness-for-service assessment.
Table 4: Results of Charpy V-Notch Tests (half-size specimens)
Sample Location Temperature (F) Test 1 (ft-lb) Test 2 (ft-lb) Test 3 (ft-lb)
-20 31 42
Circumferential 0 32 38
2
Weld HAZ 32 27 16
70 35 26
70 24
Meridian Weld 32 15
3
HAZ 0 14
-20 34 26
70 19 20 19
4 Base Metal 32 11 12
0 5 8 8
4.3. Level 1 Brittle Fracture Assessment
Considering that the Level 3 of a brittle fracture assessment requires the application of a
crack-like flaw assessment, the results for these two assessments are presented together. First, the
results of the Level 1 and 2 of the brittle fracture evaluation are shown, followed by the results of
the combined Level 3 brittle fracture and crack like-flaw assessments.
As mentioned before, Level 1 Brittle Fracture Assessment applies to equipment that meets
recognized toughness standards, determined from impact test results or from the use of industry
accepted impact test exemption curves. Pressure vessels with a MDMT equal to or lower than the
CET, are exempt from further brittle fracture assessment provided that operating conditions are
not changed in the future.
According to the ASME Code Section VIII, Div. 1, UG20 and UCS-66, Charpy tests are
required for the material of construction of the PTR Reactors, classified as Curve A material, if
the CET is bellow the MDMT. Using the as-build shell thickness, 1.716 inches, the minimum
allowable metal temperature for pressurizing the equipment without impact testing requirements
is 93 F (Figure 8). This value is above the CET assumed in this evaluation (60 F), therefore, the
Level 1 criteria is not satisfied. Following the procedure established in API RP 579, the
component should be re-rated or evaluated using the Level 2 Assessment.
4.4. Level 2 Assessment Brittle Fracture Assessment
The shell material was impact tested; therefore, a reduction in the operating temperature can
be allowed using the approach of API RP 579. The Method A of Level 2 Brittle Fracture
Assessment was applied.
The MDMT determined in the Level 1 assessment was adjusted by considering additional
temperature reduction allowances, which may apply for pressure vessels whose actual operating
stresses, at the low temperature pressurization condition, are below the allowable value from the
original construction code at room temperature. For vessels designed to the ASME Code Section
VIII, Division 1.
Figure 9 can be used to determine the temperature reduction as a function of the ratio
between the design stress and the operating stress 1-2. Table 5 and Figure 10 show the adjusted
MDMT as a function of pressure for the PTR Reactors, considering the reported operating
pressure of 310 psig. The MDMT determined in Level 1 was 93 F whereas the CET was equal
to 60 F.
As shown in Table 5, assuming that the critical exposure temperature (CET) is equal to 60
F, the acceptance criteria for Level 2 Method A are met for pressure values below or equal to
186 psig (60% of the current operating pressure). That is, the PTR Reactors could be pressurized
up to 186 psig at this CET, but further pressurization should continue only after the shell wall
reaches a temperature around 93 F (dotted line). As can be seen, the safe temperature-pressure
envelope is highly dependent of the assumed CET. For instance, if a CET equals to 80 F is
considered, the reactor could be pressurized up to 248 psig, with full pressurization after the shell
wall reaches a temperature around 93 F.
Table 6 and Figure 11 show the adjusted MDMT as a function of pressure for PTR Reactors,
considering that the reactors are working at the design pressure, 650 psig. In this case, for a
critical exposure temperature (CET) equal to 60 F, the acceptance criteria for Level 2 Method A
are met for pressure values below 390 psig (60% of the design pressure). It means that if the
reactors will be operated at design conditions, they could be pressurized up to 390 psig at this
CET, but further pressurization should continue only after the shell wall reaches a temperature
around 93 F (dotted line).
In summary, the operating pressures and corresponding values of the MDMT in Table 5
must be compared to the actual reactors operating conditions to confirm that the metal
temperature (CET) are not below the MDMT at the corresponding operating pressure.
Considering that the PTR Reactors were recently inspected and crack-like flaw indications in the
shell section were removed, a less conservative and more precise brittle fracture assessment
consistent with Paragraph 3.4.4 of API RP 579 (Level 3 assessment) can be performed on these
vessels, allowing a safe use of the pressure-temperature envelopes shown in Figure 10 and Figure
11.
Table 5: API RP 579 MDMT Level 2, Method A - Operating Pressure: 310 psig.
Pressure Primary membrane S *E*
MDMTLevel 2 A = MDMTLevel1T
RTS = S * E T (F) MDMTLevel2 A CET ?
(psi) stress, S* (ksi) SE
310 6.878 1.00 0.0 93.0 No

279 6.191 0.90 10.0 83.0 No
248 5.503 0.80 20.0 73.0 No
217 4.815 0.70 30.0 63.0 No
186 4.127 0.60 40.0 53.0 Yes
155 3.439 0.50 58.5 34.5 Yes
124 2.751 0.40 104.5 -11.5 Yes
93 2.064 0.30 105.0 -12.0 Yes
62 1.376 0.20 105.0 -12.0 Yes
31 0.688 0.10 105.0 -12.0 Yes
Table 6: API RP 579 MDMT Level 2, Method A - Operating Pressure: 310 psig.
Pressure Primary membrane S *E* T (F) MDMTLevel 2 A = MDMTLevel1T MDMTLevel2 A CET ?

RTS = S * E
(psi) stress, S* (ksi) SE
310 6.878 1.00 0.0 93.0 No

279 6.191 0.90 10.0 83.0 No
248 5.503 0.80 20.0 73.0 No
217 4.815 0.70 30.0 63.0 No
186 4.127 0.60 40.0 53.0 Yes
155 3.439 0.50 58.5 34.5 Yes
124 2.751 0.40 104.5 -11.5 Yes
93 2.064 0.30 105.0 -12.0 Yes
62 1.376 0.20 105.0 -12.0 Yes
31 0.688 0.10 105.0 -12.0 Yes
4.5. Level 3 Brittle Fracture and Crack-like Flaws Assessments
The Level 3 brittle fracture assessment is based on the fracture mechanics principles
presented in Section 9 of the recommended practice API RP 579. In the assessment, the limiting
flaw size in the shell reactor is established, and a sensitivity study is performed to determine how
the limiting flaw size changes as the temperature on the shell of the reactor changes during start-
up or shut-down. Based on the results of the assessment, crack-like flaws tolerance curves for
different pressure-temperature combinations and a graph of limiting flaw size versus temperature
are constructed. This graph is referred to as a Fracture Tolerance Signature (FTS). The FTS
provides an indication of the safety margin in terms of limiting flaw size. In addition, the FTS can
be used to define a safe pressure-temperature envelope by establishing a flaw size that can be
detected with sufficient confidence using an NDE technique. In this assessment level, fracture
mechanics concepts are used to determine the effect of crack-like flaws on the structural integrity
of the equipment.
The risk of brittle failure of a component depends on the applied stresses, the material
fracture toughness, and the presence of crack-like flaws of a particular size. Level 3 assessments
involve the use of fracture mechanics concepts to determine under which conditions the
combination of these three factors can produce a brittle fracture of the equipment. The analysis
tool for assessing the integrity of a structure with crack-like flaws is called the Failure
Assessment Diagram (FAD), which covers a full range of material behavior, from brittle fracture
to plastic collapse.
Having calculated stresses in critical areas of the reactor shell for particular operating
conditions, and knowing the tensile properties and the fracture toughness of the material, limiting
crack size curves (critical crack depth versus crack length) can be prepared. It is understood that
crack-like flaws in the shell of the PTR Reactors, reported in their inspection records, were
removed during the last turnaround. Therefore, after performing the Level 3 assessment, the
charts in Figure 10 and Figure 11 provide a safe pressure-temperature envelope and the crack-like
flaw tolerance curves should be used as reference for future inspections. A brief explanation of
the three factors involved in the Level 3 analysis of the PTR reactors is given as follows:
4.5.1. Stresses:
When calculating the stresses in the vicinity of a crack-like flaw, consideration should be
given not only to primary stresses associated to the internal pressure, but also to the localized
stresses in specific regions.
Crack-like flaws near welds are subject to both mechanical and residual stresses. In this
case, no secondary stresses (thermal stresses, external loads, etc.) were considered. Mechanical
or primary stresses corresponding to those resulting from the internal pressure were estimated for
several combinations of pressure and temperature, up to the current operating and design
conditions.
Residual stresses were assumed constant thought the wall thickness and proportional to the
yield strength of the base metal; they were estimated using the procedures specified in Appendix
E of the API Recommended Practice on Fitness-For-Service, API RP 5792.
4.5.2. Flaws
Crack-like flaws in the shell of PTR Reactors were removed during the last turnaround.
However, for the purpose of this analysis it was reasonably conservative to assume the presence
of internal surface breaking cracks. The applied primary and the residual stresses depend upon
the crack location and orientation. In order to cover different scenarios cracks parallel and
perpendicular to welds in the shell section were considered in this analysis. An idealized crack-
like flaw open to the internal surface was used for screening purposes, being this a surface crack
of depth a and length 2c (Figure 12).
4.5.3. Mechanical Properties - Fracture Toughness
The fracture toughness of a material measures its ability to resist crack propagation. Several
fracture toughness parameters are available, including critical stress intensity factor (KIC), J
integral, and crack tip opening displacement (CTOD).
When fracture toughness data are not available, an indexing procedure can provide a
conservative estimate of fracture toughness for a given application. The indexing approach was
originally developed for nuclear reactor pressure vessels3. The reference temperature in the
ASME approach is termed RTNDT, which is based on a combination of a drop weight nil-
ductility transition temperature (NDTT) and the Charpy transition curve.
In the recommended practice API RP 579 FFS approach, the ASME reference curves have
been adopted, but RTNDT has been replaced by the 15 ft-lb Charpy transition - temperature for
carbon and low alloy steels. The reference equation is given by:
K IC = 33.2 + 2.806 exp[0.02(T Tref + 100)]
The fracture toughness KIC is expressed in ksiin, and the temperatures T and Tref are in
F. This equation is truncated when KIC is equal to 100 ksiin, unless data are available that
indicate higher upper shelf toughness. Knowing the reference temperature, Tref, for a 15 ft-lb
Charpy impact energy and the operating temperature T at which the analysis is performed, lower-
bound fracture toughness for the material can be determined using equation 1.
In order to be conservative, the upper shelf limit for the 15 ft-lb transition temperature of
PTR Reactors was taken as the reference temperature value to determine the lower bound fracture
toughness from equation 1, for each operating temperature considered.
The first condition for both cases corresponds to the point of the pressure temperature
envelope in which Level 2 assessment criteria were satisfied. The last condition corresponds to
full pressurization (310 psig operating pressure and design pressure) above the MDMT.
Condition 2 is a middle point.
Table 7: Conditions considered for the limiting flaw size analysis of PTR Reactors with a maximum
pressure of 310 psig (current operating pressure)
Condition Pressure (psig) Temperature (F) Fracture Toughness (ksiin)

1 186 (40% operating pressure) 53 79.3
2 248 (70% operating pressure) 73 100.0
3 310 (operating pressure) 93 100.0
Table 8: Conditions considered for the limiting flaw size analysis of PTR Reactors with a maximum
pressure of 650 psig (design pressure)
Condition Pressure (psig) Temperature (F) Fracture Toughness (ksiin)

1 390 (40% design pressure) 53 79.3
2 520 (70% design pressure) 73 100.0
3 650 (design pressure) 93 100.0
4.5.4. Limiting crack size or crack-like flaw tolerance curves
The knowledge of the limiting flaw size can help inspectors to determine the adequate level
of NDE sensitivity as well as to make decisions about the need for repairs. Limiting flaw size or
crack-like flaw tolerance curves were developed using the stresses calculated in the shell portion
of the reactors. A limiting flaw size curve is valid for the particular pressure and temperature
condition considered. Table 9 summarizes the cases evaluated for the PTR Reactors. The
corresponding graphs for each case are shown in the figures indicated in the table.
In the first nine cases (Figure 13 to Figure 15) the maximum pressure is 310 psig, the current
operating pressure. Cases 10 to 18 in Table 9 correspond to a maximum internal pressure
equivalent to the design pressure (650 psig). The residual stress was assumed uniform through
the shell thickness, and proportional to the base metal yield stress. The stress magnitude varies
changes depending upon the orientation of the crack with respect to the weld (parallel or
perpendicular).
Table 9: Cases considered for the limiting flaw size analysis of PTR Reactors
Fracture
Pressure Temperature
Case Crack location and orientation Toughness Figure
(psig) (F)
(ksiin)
1 186 53.0 79.3
2 Cracks in base metal 248 73.0 100.0 Figure 13
3 310 93.0 100.0
4 186 53.0 79.3
5 Cracks parallel to welds 248 73.0 100.0 Figure 14
6 310 93.0 100.0
7 186 53.0 79.3
8 Cracks perpendicular to welds 248 73.0 100.0 Figure 15
9 310 93.0 100.0
10 390 53.0 79.3
11 Cracks in base metal 520 73.0 100.0 Figure 16
12 650 93.0 100.0
13 390 53.0 79.3
14 Cracks parallel to welds 520 73.0 100.0 Figure 17
15 650 93.0 100.0
16 390 53.0 79.3
17 Cracks perpendicular to welds 520 73.0 100.0 Figure 18
18 650 93.0 100.0
The curve plotted in each graph corresponds to the limiting flaw size for a lower bound
fracture toughness derived from the Tref upper limit (13F), according to the 95 % of confidence
interval analysis explained previously.
For screening purposes standard reference crack-like flaws open to the internal surface can
be assumed. This reference flaw has a depth a of 25 %, 40%, 60% and 80% the nominal wall
thickness. The length 2c equals 6 times a. These standard reference flaws were plotted in all
the crack-like flaw tolerance curves (Figure 13 to Figure 18). Notice that they flaw are acceptable
no matter their location (base or weld metal) or orientation (parallel or perpendicular to the weld),
and the maximum pressure at both the design and operating pressure.
Figures 19 and 20 show the Fracture Tolerance Signature (FTS) curves for the PTR
Reactors, considering a crack-like flaw aspect ratio (2c divided by a) between 6 to 7.
Curves for cracks in the base metal, and cracks parallel and perpendicular to the welds are
provided for both scenarios, maximum pressure of 310 psig (Figure 19) and maximum pressure
of 650 psig (Figure 20). Usually, the critical crack size in Fracture Tolerance Signature (FTS)
curves changes with the temperature and pressure. In this analysis the difference is negligible,
with a critical crack depth equal or very close to the wall thickness (trough-wall crack, a =
1.716 inches and 2c = 10.296 inches). At lower temperature the fracture toughness is lower,
but the stress generated by the internal pressure also decreases. The critical crack size is shown at
93F, when full pressurization at 650 psig can be achieved (Figure 20), and corresponds to a
crack perpendicular to the weld seam. At this condition the critical crack-size is a = 1.471
inches and 2c = 9.810 inches. That means that if the PTR spheres are working at the design
pressure, when the crack depth reaches 85% of the wall thickness, it will propagate unstably. At
the same conditions, but for cracks parallel to weld, unstable propagation occurs when the crack
depth reaches 98% of the wall thickness. At the current operating condition, leak-before-break is
expected in these reactors, that is, a crack can be as long as twice the thickness before unstable
propagation.
Without any safety margin, the above described critical crack size could be used as reference
in future inspections. However, after the determination of the critical crack size, the next
question is whether this flaw can be detected by NDE, and what the confidence of the detection
is. Although a considerable amount of attention has been focused in recent years towards the
development of Probability of Detection (POD) models for a variety of NDE methods by the
industry, work still needs to be done to clarify the POD issue. Obviously, the POD depends on
various factors such as surface condition, location, accessibility, operator competence, as well as
NDE technique.
Figure 21 shows the results of a study to determine the Minimum Detectable Flaw Size
(linear weld flaws and cracks) in carbon steel pressure vessels using Acoustic Emission4. At the
current operating conditions (310 psig), the PTR spheres reach a stress around 7 ksi. According
to this figure, the minimum detectable crack length is close to 1.5 inches, which is smaller than
25% of the critical crack length. This crack-like flaw should be also detectable from the external
surface using Shear Wave Ultrasonic Testing (UT) with a high confidence level, because this
technique has high sensitivity for surface cracks. As a matter of fact, internal surface cracks were
detected in these spheres using the Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) UT technique. Crack
lengths between 3.150 to 61.024 inches, and depths between 0.159 to 0.667 inches were reported.
Therefore, if a critical crack depth of 25%the nominal wall thickness (0.429 inches) is assumed, a
safety factor of four (4) is obtained, with a high confidence level of detection using UT and/or
Acoustic Emission. This assumption allows a conservative analysis reducing the risk of a
catastrophic failure due unstable crack propagation.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The microstructure of the samples obtained from the reactor D-2002 was found to be normal,
although several small linear indications were observed with optical microscopy. These were
very superficial cracks and it has been stated that they have also been detected on the actual
reactor in previous inspections. Follow up to their propagation is recommended as well as
analysis of their origin.
The chemical composition of the base plate and welds was in accordance with the
specifications for construction.
The Charpy impact energy test results indicated that the more conservative temperature at
which the impact energy equals 15 ft-lb is 13F. This is taken to be the brittle-ductile transition
temperature. The lower bound fracture toughness was obtained from this temperature using API
RP 579 correlations.
Safe pressure-temperature envelopes for the PTR Reactor were developed in this fitness-for-
service assessment considering current operating and design conditions. They should be used for
start-up and shut-down procedures.
Crack-like flaw tolerance curves for different pressure-temperature combinations (pressure-

temperature envelope) were prepared. Figures 1 and 2 show the results for operating and design
conditions. Fracture Tolerance Signature (FTS) curves (limiting flaw size versus temperature)
were also constructed.
A limiting crack depth a of 25% the nominal wall thickness was established using a safety
of factor of four (4). This assumption allows a conservative analysis reducing the risk of a
catastrophic failure due unstable crack propagation, with a high confidence level of detection
using UT and/or Acoustic Emission.
6. REFERENCES
1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules For Construction of Pressure
Vessels, Section VIII, Division 1, 1998, 2000 Addenda, July 2000, NY.
2. API Recommended Practice on Fitness-For-Service, API RP 579, First Edition,

March 2000.
3. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules For Construction of Pressure
Vessels, Sectios III and XI.
4. Minimum Detectable Flaw Size Capability of Acoustic Emission, T. J. Fowler,

University of Texas, and T. N. Crump, DuPont. 2001.
Figure 1: Samples Removed from D-2002, as-received. The direction of the top of the
reactor is marked on each sample.
Figure 2: The four samples removed after macro-etching. The weld and base metals are clearly
distinguishable in Samples 2 and 3.
(A) (B)
Figure 3: Linear Indications were observed in Sample 2 (two are encircled).
Figure 4: Micrograph of one of the linear indications detected in Sample 2.
1,2
1,0
unacceptable
0,8
0,6
0,4 acceptable
0,2
0,0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8
Lr
Figure 5: Typical Failure Analysis Diagram (FAD)
2.50
Crack Depth (inches)
2.00
1.50
unacceptable
1.00
0.50
acceptable
0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Crack Length (inches)
Figure 6: Typical Crack-like Flaw Tolerance Curves
50
40
Energy Absorbed (ft-lb)
30
20
10
0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Temperature ( oF)
Figure 7. Charpy V-notch test values. Regression plot 95% confidence bands, PTR Sphere
D-2002.
0mm 50mm 100mm 150mm 200mm 250mm

120F 50C
SA-204 Grade A 40C

100F
Minimum Design Metal Temperature (MDMT)
(Curve A)
30C
80F
CET = 60F 20C
60F
10C
40F
0C
20F
-10C
0F
-20C
Curve A
-20F Curve B -30C
Curve C
-40F Curve D -40C
PTR Spheres
-60F -50C
0" 1" 2" 3" 4" 5" 6"
Governing PlateThickness
Figure 8: Minimum Allowable Metal Temperature For Pressurization without Impact

Testing.
Reduction in Minimum Allowable Temperature on Available

Excess Thickness
1.00
0.90
RTS = tr x E* / (tg - LOSS - FCA)
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
(Note 2)
0.40
(Note 3)
0.30 (Note 4)
0.20
0F 20F 40F 60F 80F 100F 120F 140F 160F 180F 200F
TR, Temperature Reduction
Figure 9: Reduction in Minimum Design Metal Temperature based on Available Excess

Thickness.
Level 2. Method A
340
Pressure (psig)
Level 3
300
260
220
180
140
100
100
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Temperature (F)
Figure 10: Pressure Temperature Envelope for the Shell Material PTR Reactors at current
conditions.
Level 3
Pressure (psig) 700
Level 2. Method A
600
500
400
300
200
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Temperature (F)
Figure 11: Pressure Temperature Envelope for the Shell Material PTR Reactors at design
conditions.
length
depth 2c ID
a
t
d
ligament OD
Surface crack
Figure 12: Idealization of a surface crack.
Crack Depth (in)

2.0
186 psi, 53 F 248 psi, 73 F 310 psi, 93 F
tn = 1.716"
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Crack Length (in)
Figure 13: Damage tolerance curves PTR Reactors. Cracks in base metal. Maximum
pressure: 310 psig.
2.0
Crack Depth (in)
186 psi, 53 F 248 psi, 73 F 310 psi, 93 F
tn = 1.716"
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Crack Length (in)
Figure 14: Damage tolerance curve PTR Reactors. Cracks parallel to welds. Maximum
pressure: 310 psig.
2.0
Crack Depth (in) 186 psi, 53 F 248 psi, 73 F 310 psi, 93 F
tn = 1.716"
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Crack Length (in)
Figure 15: Damage tolerance curve PTR Reactors - Cracks perpendicular to welds.
Maximum pressure: 310 psig.
Crack Depth (in)
2.0
390 psi, 53 F 520 psi, 73 F 650 psi, 93 F
tn = 1.716"
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Crack Length (in)
Figure 16: Damage tolerance curve PTR Reactors. Cracks in base metal. Maximum
pressure: 650 psig.
2.0
Crack Depth (in) 390 psi, 53 F 520 psi, 73 F 650 psi, 73 F
tn = 1.716"
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Crack Length (in)
Figure 17: Damage tolerance curve PTR Reactors. Cracks parallel to welds. Maximum
pressure: 650 psig.
2.0
Crack Depth (in)
390 psi, 93 F 520 psi, 93 F 650 psi, 93 F
tn = 1.716"
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Crack Length (in)
Figure 18: Damage tolerance curve PTR Reactors. Cracks perpendicular to welds.
15
Crack Dimensions (in)
14
Cracks in Base Metal Cracks Parallel to Welds Cracks Perpendicular to Welds
13
12
11
Crack Length, "2c"
10
3 Crack Depth, "a"

2
0
50 60 70 80 90 100
Presurization Temperature (F)
Figure 19: Fracture Tolerance Signature (FTS) PTR Reactors. Maximum pressure: 310
psig.
15
Crack Dimensions (in)
14
Cracks in Base Metal Cracks Parallel to Welds Cracks Perpendicular to Welds
13
12
11 Crack Length, "2c"

10
3
Crack Depth, "a"
2
0
50 60 70 80 90 100
Presurization Temperature (F)
Figure 20: Fracture Tolerance Signature (FTS) PTR Reactors. Cracks in base metal.
Minimum Detectable Flaw Size For Pressure

Vessels
18
Applied Stress During AE Test
16
14
12
10
(Ksi)
Crack Flaws
8
6
4
Linear Weld Flaws
2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Minimum Detectable Flaw Length "2c" (inches)
Figure 21: Acoustic Emission Minimum Detectable Flaw Size For Pressure Vessel Shells.

Final Report 03-280 PTR Reactors

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

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

Final Report 03-280 PTR Reactors

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

February 6, 2004

Reference: Fitness-For-Service Assessment PTR Reactors

Antonio Seijas Anelsy Mayorga

2. SCOOP SAMPLES AND METALLOGRAPHIC EVALUATION

2.1. Sample Removal

2.2. Metallographic Examination

2.3. Chemical analysis

Table 2: Scoop Samples taken from D-2002

3 Meridian Weld Internal 20 3.23 x 3.10 8

4 Base Metal Internal 24 2.98 x 2.94 6

5 Meridian Weld External 7.5 1.97 x 1.88 Unusable

3. API RP 579 FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

3.1. Methodology for crack-like flaw assessments

3.2. Methodology for brittle fracture assessment

The Minimum Design Metal Temperature (MDMT) may be a single temperature, or an

- Method B: equipment may be qualified for continued service based on a hydrotest,

- Method C: equipment may be qualified for continued service based on materials of

The determination of the CET considers the following situations:

4.1. Chemical Analysis

Table 3: Chemical Analysis from Sample 3.

4.2. Charpy V-Notch (CVN) Testing

In fitness for service analyses, a 15 ft-lb ductile-brittle transition temperature is

Table 4: Results of Charpy V-Notch Tests (half-size specimens)

4.3. Level 1 Brittle Fracture Assessment

4.4. Level 2 Assessment Brittle Fracture Assessment

310 6.878 1.00 0.0 93.0 No

Pressure Primary membrane S *E* T (F) MDMTLevel 2 A = MDMTLevel1T MDMTLevel2 A CET ?

310 6.878 1.00 0.0 93.0 No

4.5. Level 3 Brittle Fracture and Crack-like Flaws Assessments

4.5.3. Mechanical Properties - Fracture Toughness

K IC = 33.2 + 2.806 exp[0.02(T Tref + 100)]

Condition Pressure (psig) Temperature (F) Fracture Toughness (ksiin)

Condition Pressure (psig) Temperature (F) Fracture Toughness (ksiin)

4.5.4. Limiting crack size or crack-like flaw tolerance curves

Crack-like flaw tolerance curves for different pressure-temperature combinations (pressure-

2. API Recommended Practice on Fitness-For-Service, API RP 579, First Edition,

4. Minimum Detectable Flaw Size Capability of Acoustic Emission, T. J. Fowler,

Figure 4: Micrograph of one of the linear indications detected in Sample 2.

Figure 5: Typical Failure Analysis Diagram (FAD)

Figure 6: Typical Crack-like Flaw Tolerance Curves

0mm 50mm 100mm 150mm 200mm 250mm

SA-204 Grade A 40C

Figure 8: Minimum Allowable Metal Temperature For Pressurization without Impact

Reduction in Minimum Allowable Temperature on Available

Figure 9: Reduction in Minimum Design Metal Temperature based on Available Excess

Figure 12: Idealization of a surface crack.

Crack Depth (in)

186 psi, 53 F 248 psi, 73 F 310 psi, 93 F

Crack Length (in)

Crack Length (in)

390 psi, 93 F 520 psi, 93 F 650 psi, 93 F

3 Crack Depth, "a"

11 Crack Length, "2c"

Minimum Detectable Flaw Size For Pressure

Вам также может понравиться

Pressure Primary membrane S E T (F) MDMTLevel 2 A = MDMTLevel1T MDMTLevel2 A CET ?