Pressurized vessels such as a steam drum in a typical power plant can often experience in-service cracking. Structural integrity assessment methodology can be a useful tool to determine the suitability of a vessel for service. This methodology may include fitness-for-service and remaining useful life analyses of a vessel based on the nondestructive examination (NDE) results and operating conditions. In this paper, the structural integrity assessment methodology applied to a steam drum case study is described. The analysis procedure, material property determination, stress analysis, limiting flaw size evaluation, and remaining useful life evaluation for the drum are discussed. A thermal shock design tool is briefly introduced. Recommendations for appropriate action are also presented. The assessment methodology employed in this paper can be applied to other similar pressurized vessels and structures in power plants.

1.
API 5795, 2000, “
Recommended Practice for Fitness-for-Service
,” January.
2.
Nuclear Electric, 1998, “
Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects
,” Nuclei Electric R-6, Nuclear Electric.
3.
BSI, 1999, “
Guide on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Structures
,” BS 7910, British Standard Institute.
4.
SAQ/FoU, 1997, “
A Procedure for Safety Assessment of Components with Cracks—Handbook
,” SAQ/FoU-Report 96/08.
5.
WES 2805, 1997, “
Method of Assessment for Flaws in Fusion Welded Joints with Respect to Brittle Fracture and Fatigue Crack Growth
.”
6.
Scott
,
P. M.
,
Anderson
,
T. L.
,
Osage
,
D. A.
, and
Wilkowski
,
G. M.
, 1998, “
A Review of Existing Fitness-for-Service Criteria for Crack-like Flaws
,” WRC Bulletin 430, The Welding Research Council, New York, April.
7.
Bull
,
J. D.
, and
Yee
,
R. K.
, 2005, “
Spreadsheet-based Design Tool for the Analysis of Thermal Shock
,” ASME Summer Heat Transfer Conference Proceedings, San Francisco, July 17–22.
8.
BSI PD6493, 1991, “
Guidance on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion Welded Structures
,” British Standards Institution.
9.
ASME Section 11 Division I, 2001, Appendix A, Reference Temperature Index Curves.
10.
Cipolla
,
R. C.
,
Grover
,
J. L.
,
Hayes
,
D. J.
, and
Egan
,
G. R.
, 1984, “
Requirements and Guidelines for Evaluating Component Support Materials Under Unresolved Safety Issue A-12
,” Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI Report NP-3528, June.
11.
Hibbitt Karlsson & Sorenson, Inc.
, 2002, ABAQUS Finite Element Code, Version 6.2–7, Providence, RI.
12.
Timoshenko
,
S.
, and
Goodier
,
J. N.
, 1951,
Theory of Elasticity
,
2nd ed.
,
McGraw-Hill
,
New York
.
13.
Budynas
,
R. G.
, 1999,
Advanced Strength and Applied Stress Analysis
,
2nd ed.
,
McGraw-Hill
,
New York
, p.
348
.
14.
PREFIS Computer Code
, 1996, “
Fitness-for-Service Evaluation Procedures for Operating Pressure Vessels, Tanks, and Piping in Refinery and Chemical Service
,” Materials Properties Council, Inc.
15.
Barsom
,
J. M.
, and
Rolfe
,
S. T.
, 1987,
Fracture & Fatigue Control in Structures
,
2nd Ed.
,
Prentice-Hall
,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
, p.
284
.
16.
ASME Section 11 Fatigue Crack Growth Curves for Carbon and Low Alloy Ferritic Steels, 2001.
17.
Newman
,
J. C.
, and
Raju
,
I. S.
, 1983, “
Stress-Intensity Factor Equations for Cracks in Three-Dimensional Finite Bodies
,” ASTM STP 791.
You do not currently have access to this content.