ARTICLE IN PRESS

Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Failure analysis on a primary superheater tube of a power plant

J. Purbolaksono a,*, J. Ahmad b, L.C. Beng b, A.Z. Rashid a, A. Khinani a, A.A. Ali a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Km 7 Jalan Kajang-Puchong, Kajang 43009, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Kapar Energy Ventures Sdn Bhd, Jalan Tok Muda, Kapar 42200, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper failure analysis on the SA213-T12 superheater tube by visual inspection,
Received 16 March 2009 in situ measurements of hardness and finite element analyses is presented. A primary
Received in revised form 23 April 2009 superheater tube has failed with a wide open burst after running at around 28,194 h. Heavy
Accepted 25 April 2009
clinkers were found to almost entirely cover the primary superheater region. In situ hard-
Available online xxxx
ness measurements were carried out on the selected primary superheater first row tubes at
the middle region between furnace rear screen tube and primary superheater blower flow
Keywords:
path. Hardness measurements are also taken on the as-received failed tube. Finite element
Primary superheater tube
Failure analysis
analyses on possible features prior to failure are also conducted in order to illustrate and
Hardness deduce the failure mechanism and failure root cause. Localized short-term overheating
Clinker of the tube due to localized and concentrated flue gas flow resulted in a failure of the pri-
Short-term overheating mary superheater tube.
Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Superheater tubes are the highest failure location as reported by French [1]. Jones [2] also reported creep failure problems
including superheater tube failure and indicated that under which the failures occurred the conditions of temperature and
time are deduced from the morphology of fracture and the change in microstructure. Detailed discussions on superheater
tube failures have been discussed by French [1] and Port and Herro [3].
This paper presents failure analysis on the SA213-T12 superheater tubes by visual inspection, in situ measurements of
hardness and finite element analyses. It was reported that a primary superheater tube has failed with wide open burst. Con-
dition of the site at the time of failure showed heavy clinkers almost entirely covering the primary superheater region. In situ
hardness measurements were carried out on the selected primary superheater first row tubes at the middle region between
furnace rear screen tube and primary superheater blower flow path to estimate the average operating metal temperature
under the normal service condition. Microscopic examinations are carried out on unruptured parts of the as-received tube.
Finite element analyses on possible features prior to failure are carried out in order to illustrate and deduce the failure mech-
anism and failure root cause. The finite element simulations are carried out by using software package of ANSYS [4].

2. Operation facts and condition of failure region

New SA213-T12 primary superheater first row tubes were fitted in the boiler unit in August 2004. The tubes have outer
diameter of 50.8 mm and thickness of 5 mm. It was reported that the boiler had operated normally until a new type of coal
was used for the firing of the operation. The failure occurred in less than 10 days (226 h) in June 2007 after a new firing

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 3 89212213; fax: +60 3 89212116.

E-mail address: judha@uniten.edu.my (J. Purbolaksono).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.04.017

Please cite this article in press as: Purbolaksono J et al. Failure analysis on a primary superheater tube of a power plant. Eng Fail Anal
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.04.017
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 J. Purbolaksono et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

pattern was introduced. According to the record of the operation for the boiler unit, the failed tube had only operated at
around 28,194 h. The average steam pressure was reported equal to 14.1 MPa.
According to the on-site condition, the firing of a new type of coal had significantly produced heavy clinker formations as
shown in Fig. 1. Thick clinkers almost entirely covered the primary superheater leading tubes (topmost tubes). The empty
spaces between primary superheater panels were filled with clinkers. There were random spots where were uncovered or
lightly covered by the clinkers including the failed tube region. The new type of coal had low ash fusion temperature of
1210 °C which is close to the minimum specification limit of 1200 °C. It considerably leads to firing problem if this fusion
temperature is compared with the average furnace flame temperature of 1400 °C. This condition is identified as the main
root cause of the failure. It may be schematically illustrated in Fig. 2. The flue gas from furnace will concentrate at the pri-
mary superheater region resulting in concentrated flow through the uncovered tubes. Due to obstruction of the flue gas flow,
the panels which have closer distance to the burner might have a higher temperature.

3. Visual inspections

Visual appearance of the failed tube shown in Fig. 3 revealed findings as follows:

– The dimensions of the opening burst of the tube are 7 cm in length and 9.0 cm in width, and no swelling was found
elsewhere.
– At the rupture lips/edges, the wall thickness is in the range of 0.2–0.5 mm.
– Thin oxide scale was found with thickness of 0.2 mm.
– There was no evidence of the active corrosion on both internal and external surfaces of the tube.
– There were no signs of the localized wall thinning of the failed tube and at adjacent tubes.

This information may be used to evaluate possibility of the failure due to localized overheating in a relatively short period
of time.

4. Hardness measurements

Hardness measurements on the selected primary superheater first row tubes at the middle region between furnace rear
screen tube and primary superheater blower flow path were carried out. The measurements were taken during the un-
planned outage due to the failed tube at the different location after the boiler unit returned into service (7½ days later).

Fig. 1. Heavy clinkers covering the primary superheater region and filling empty spaces between the panels, and potential localized overheating at some
uncovered spots.

Please cite this article in press as: Purbolaksono J et al. Failure analysis on a primary superheater tube of a power plant. Eng Fail Anal
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.04.017
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Purbolaksono et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 3

Fig. 2. Flow and mapping of flue gas temperatures in the boiler unit.

The hardness readings are plotted together with the minimum and maximum hardness values for SA213-T12 as shown in
Fig. 4. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that hardness readings of all the selected primary superheater first row tubes remain within
the acceptable values. The average value of the readings, i.e. 160.5 HV, may be compromised to be used for estimating the
operating metal temperature under the normal service condition.
Correlation between hardness (HV) and the Larsen–Miller parameter for 1Cr–½ Mo steel in the as-normalized condition
may be expressed as [5]
Hardness ðHVÞ ¼ 595:453  0:012603P ð1Þ

Please cite this article in press as: Purbolaksono J et al. Failure analysis on a primary superheater tube of a power plant. Eng Fail Anal
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.04.017
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 J. Purbolaksono et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Fig. 3. The failed primary superheater tube with a wide open burst.

The operating metal temperature under the normal service condition may be determined by using Eq. (1) as follows:

– 160.5 = 595.453  0.012603 (T (20 + log(28,194))

– T = 1411.5 Rankine = 510.84 °C.

The normal operating temperature may be used to ensure that the failure due to creep problem is not expected. The esti-
mated hoop stress rh developed in the tube may be determined as
ðr þ 2t Þ
rh ¼ P ð2Þ
t
where P is operational internal pressure, r and t are inner radius and wall.
Diagram of Larsen–Miller parameter with stress variation to rupture of SA213-T12 steel (ASTM) [6] as shown in Fig. 5 is
utilized to determine the rupture time. For the operating steam pressure of 14.1 MPa, the Larsen–Miller parameter obtained
from Fig. 5 using the mean curve is 36,400. Hence, the rupture time for the metal tube temperature of 510.84 °C is 613,690 h.
If conservative calculation is made by using the minimum curve shown in Fig. 5 with the Larsen–Miller parameter of 35,700,
the rupture time is around 195,897 h. Both calculations confirm that the creep damage is not expected.
Hardness measurements of the as-received tube at the rupture edges and some distance away from the rupture region are
also carried out. The locations for the hardness measurements indicated in Fig. 3. Locations 1 and 5 are, respectively, situated

190

180

170
Hardness, HV

160

150 Hardness readings of 1st row tubes

Min. T12 hardness limit = 135 HV

140 Max. T12 hardness limit = 184 HV

130
0 10 20 30 40
No. of the selected first row tubes

Fig. 4. Hardness readings of the selected primary superheater first row tubes.

Please cite this article in press as: Purbolaksono J et al. Failure analysis on a primary superheater tube of a power plant. Eng Fail Anal
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.04.017
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Purbolaksono et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 5

Fig. 5. Diagram of Larsen–Miller parameter with stress variation to rupture of 1Cr–½ Mo steel (ASTM) [6] (1 ksi = 6.895 MPa).

at 21 cm and 18.5 cm away from the rupture region. Location 4 is 180° away from the center of the rupture region. The hard-
ness readings are presented in Table 1. It can be seen from Table 1, hardness readings for the inner surface of Locations 1 and
5 remain around the average value shown in Fig. 4. However, the hardness readings for Locations 2 and 3 (ruptured edges)
show significantly greater than those of Locations 1, 4 and 5. Moreover, the readings also show greater than the maximum
limit of 184 HV (Fig. 4). It may indicate that there were transformation products at the ruptured regions. It also indicates that
localized overheating had occurred in the failed tube.
Microstructure examinations on the unruptured sections of the as-received tube are also carried out. Photomicrographs of
the structure for Locations 1, 4 and 5 are presented in Figs. 6–8. It can be seen from Figs. 6–8, the microstructure structures of
the failed tube in Locations 1, 4 and 5 show normal ferrite and pearlite structures. It agrees with the hardness readings
shown in Table 1.

5. Heat transfer parameters and finite element modeling

Convection coefficient of steam film for fully developed turbulent flow in circular tube is expressed as [7]:
ks
hs ¼ 0:023 ðRes Þ0:8 ðPrs Þ0:4 ð3Þ
Di
where ks is steam conductivity and Di is the inner diameter of the tube.
Reynolds number for steam flow Res may be expressed as [7]

4 ms
Res ¼ ð4Þ
pDi ls

Table 1
Hardness readings (HV) of the as-received tube.

Location 1 2 3 4 5
Hardness (HV) 155.4 215.1 204.5 176.0 156.6

Please cite this article in press as: Purbolaksono J et al. Failure analysis on a primary superheater tube of a power plant. Eng Fail Anal
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.04.017
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 J. Purbolaksono et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Fig. 6. Microstructures (magnification of 200) of the failed tube at Location 1 as indicated in Fig. 3.


where ms is mass flow rate of the steam and ls is steam viscosity. Prandtl number for steam flow Prs may be defined as

ls Cps
Prs ¼ ð5Þ
ks

in which Cps is specific heat of the steam.

A conservative estimated convection coefficient of flue gas hg on outer surface of bare tube in inline and staggered
arrangements is given by [8]

12kg
hg ¼ 0:33 ðReg Þ0:6 ðPrg Þ0:33 ð6Þ
Do

where kg is flue gas conductivity and Do is outer diameter of the tube. The Prandtl number for flue gas flow Prg is defined as
lg Cpg
Prg ¼ ð7Þ
kg

Fig. 7. Microstructures (magnification of 500) of the failed tube at Location 4 as indicated in Fig. 3.

Please cite this article in press as: Purbolaksono J et al. Failure analysis on a primary superheater tube of a power plant. Eng Fail Anal
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.04.017
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Purbolaksono et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 7

Fig. 8. Microstructures (magnification of 500) of the failed tube at Location 5 as indicated in Fig. 3.

in which Cpg and kg are specific heat and thermal conductivity of the flue gas, respectively. The corresponding Reynolds num-
ber Reg may be expressed as [8]
GD0
Reg ¼ ð8Þ
12lg

where G is gas mass velocity and may be defined as [8]

Wg
G ¼ 12 ð9Þ
Nw LðSt  D0 Þ
in which Wg is gas flow, Nw is number of tube wide, St is transverse pitch and L is the tube length.
The finite element simulations are carried out in order to illustrate the phenomena of heat transfer under normal and
abnormal service conditions. The properties of the elements are defined as 2D-axisymmetric solid elements. In the presence
of the oxide scale the model will have two domain areas, i.e. scale and tube metal, as shown in Fig. 9. Data obtained from the
visual inspection for scale thickness and the geometry of the failed tube are used to generate the geometry of the finite ele-
ment models. The bulk temperature and convection coefficient hgas of the flue gas are applied on the right edge of the model
(Fig. 9). Next, the bulk temperature and convection coefficient hsteam of the steam are applied on the left edge of the model.
Different convective film coefficients due to steam flow inside tube and flue gas flow outside tube would influence the
temperature profile in the tube metal. Four finite element models are made to illustrate the effect of the steam and flue
gas flows on the temperature distributions in the tube. In this study material of the oxide scale is treated to be all magnetite
(Fe3O4) which has thermal conductivity of 0.592 W/m °C [1]. The primary superheater SA213-T12 has thermal conductivity
of 35 W/m °C [1]. Steam temperature of 450 °C is considered in the finite element simulations. Details of parameters for the
models are shown in Table 2. Each model may be described as follows:

– Model A represents tube under normal service.

– Model B represents tube having a higher convective coefficient due to concentrated flue gas flow. Massive clinker forma-
tions have obstructed flue gas flow. Eqs. (8) and (9) may be used to explain this phenomenon. Expression of (St  Do) will
physically become small in the presence of clinkers on the outer surface of the tube, and it results in increasing of the gas
mass velocity G.
– Model C represents tube having a higher fire-side convective coefficient and a decreased steam-side convective coefficient.
Unbalanced distribution of the firing and a localized flue gas flow might impede mass flow of the steam. Eq. (4) shows that
the steam-side convective coefficient decrease as the mass flow rate of steam decrease.
– Model D is similar to Model C, but the condition is also triggered by the increased temperature of the flue gas.

Temperature distributions of the models obtained from the finite element simulations are presented in Fig. 10. Model A is
made to approximately represent tube under normal service. Increasing of fire-side convective coefficient causes the in-
creased temperature in tube metal as indicated by the temperature distribution for Model B. Further increased temperature
in tube metal due impaired mass flow of steam is indicated by temperature distribution of Model C. The worst situation is
represented by Model D which results in extremely increased temperature in tube metal. However, either of Models B, C and
D may cause short-term overheating problems.

Please cite this article in press as: Purbolaksono J et al. Failure analysis on a primary superheater tube of a power plant. Eng Fail Anal
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.04.017
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 J. Purbolaksono et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

hot gas
oxide
scale tube metal

steam remaining tube

metal thickness
hollow
radius initial tube metal thickness

Fig. 9. Model of the primary superheater tube with scale on the inner surface.

Table 2
Details of flue gas temperatures and convective coefficients of steam and flue gas for the finite element models.

Model Tgas (°C) hgas (W/m2 °C) hsteam (W/m2 °C)

A 800 120 1000
B 800 600 1000
C 800 600 800
D 850 600 800

6. Discussion

The failure due to creep damage mechanism under the estimated normal operating temperature is not expected, and it
has been confirmed by the conservative creep analysis showing that the tube should fit for operation for next many years
under normal service condition. However, creep-fracture mechanisms as described by Jones [2] may be used to explain pos-
sibility of the creep mechanism in the failed tube. At higher temperatures and stresses the failed tube will usually show a
chisel-edge at the burst region. Finding of the visual observation showed that a thin-lipped feature was found at the ruptured
region of the primary superheater tube. Finite element simulations are carried out to support the investigation and to illus-
trate the possible phenomena causing failure of the primary superheater tube. Either condition of increasing of fire-side con-
vective coefficient and temperature, or decreasing of steam-side convective coefficient as a result of the impaired mass flow
of steam, or combination of them may cause a significant increase of the tube metal temperature. Combination of a high
operating steam pressure and an increased temperature would consequently result in creep rupture of the tube due to
short-term overheating. From the hardness measurements on the ruptured region, the readings indicate significantly higher
than those of ferrite and pearlite parts. It shows that the tube had experienced a localized overheating at the time of failure.
The temperature at the ruptured region might have gone above 723 °C.

Please cite this article in press as: Purbolaksono J et al. Failure analysis on a primary superheater tube of a power plant. Eng Fail Anal
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.04.017
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Purbolaksono et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 9

3/4 expansion model of 2D-axisymmetric solid

scale/metal interface

495.125 499.498 503.871 508.243 512.616

Model A
492.939 497.311 501.684 506.057 510.430

581.512 594.257 607.001 619.745 632.489

Model B
575.140 587.885 600.629 613.373 626.117

599.440 611.138 622.837 634.535 646.234

Model C
593.590 605.289 616.988 628.686 640.385

620.788 634.158 647.528 660.897 674.267

Model D
614.103 627.473 640.843 654.213 667.582

Fig. 10. Temperature distributions of the models as stated in Table 2.

The failure mechanism is identified due to the short-term overheating as result of the localized flue gas flow following
massive clinker formations in primary superheater region. Operation of a new type of coal having low ash fusion tempera-
ture of 1210 °C which is close to the minimum specification limit of 1200 °C is identified as the main root cause of the failure.
Coal blending for firing of coal with low ash fusion temperature should be strongly considered. Appropriate operation alert in
case of low ash fusion temperature of coal firing should also be considerably taken.

7. Conclusions

Failure analysis on the SA213-T12 primary superheater tube by visual site inspection, hardness measurements and finite
element analyses was presented. Hardness measurements on the failed rupture region and some distance away region of the
as-received tubes were carried out in order to support in determining the failure mechanism. Finite element simulations
were able to illustrate the phenomena causing failure of the tube. Short-term overheating as result of the localized flue
gas flow following massive clinker formations in primary superheater region was considered as the failure mechanism. Oper-
ation of a new type of coal having low ash fusion temperature was the main root cause of the failure.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Kapar Energy Ventures Sdn Bhd Malaysia and Universiti Tenaga Nasional Malaysia for permis-
sion of utilizing all the facilities and resources while conducting this study.

Please cite this article in press as: Purbolaksono J et al. Failure analysis on a primary superheater tube of a power plant. Eng Fail Anal
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.04.017
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 J. Purbolaksono et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

References

[1] French David N. Metallurgical failures in fossil fired boilers. New York: A Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 2000.
[2] Jones DRH. Creep failures of overheated boiler, superheater and reformer tubes. Eng Fail Anal 2004;11:873–93.
[3] Port Robert D, Herro Harvey M. The NALCO guide to boiler failure analysis. Nalco Chemical Company, McGraw-Hill Inc.; 1991.
[4] ANSYS multiphysics version 11.0. Southpointe 275 Technology Drive Canonsburg (PA): ANSYS, Inc.; 2008.
[5] Viswanathan R, Foulds JR, Roberts DA. Method for estimating the temperature of reheater and superheater tubes in fossils boilers. In: Proceedings of the
international conference on life extension and assessment, The Hague; 1988.
[6] Smith GV. Evaluation of the elevated temperature tensile and creep-rupture properties of ½Cr–½Mo, 1Cr–½Mo, and 11=4 Cr–½Mo steels. Philadelphia
(PA): ASTM; 1973.
[7] Incropera FP, DeWitt DP. Introduction to heat transfer. 3rd ed. John Wiley; 1996.
[8] Ganapathy V. Industrial boilers and heat recovery steam generators: design, applications, and calculations. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2003.

Please cite this article in press as: Purbolaksono J et al. Failure analysis on a primary superheater tube of a power plant. Eng Fail Anal
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.04.017