Accepted Manuscript

Stress Relaxation Cracking in 304H Stainless Steel Weld of a Chemical Reactor

Serviced at 560°C

Kee Bong Yoon, Jong Min Yu, Tuan Son Nguyen

PII: S1350-6307(15)00036-9
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.01.014
Reference: EFA 2498

To appear in: Engineering Failure Analysis

Received Date: 17 August 2014

Revised Date: 13 January 2015
Accepted Date: 14 January 2015

Please cite this article as: Yoon, K.B., Yu, J.M., Nguyen, T.S., Stress Relaxation Cracking in 304H Stainless Steel
Weld of a Chemical Reactor Serviced at 560°C, Engineering Failure Analysis (2015), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.engfailanal.2015.01.014

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
STRESS RELAXATION CRACKING IN 304H
STAINLESS STEEL WELD OF A CHEMICAL
REACTOR SERVICED AT 560°C

Kee Bong Yoon1*, Jong Min Yu2 and Tuan Son Nguyen3
1 2 3
Professor , Graduate Student and PhD Candidate , Respectively,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chung Ang University
84 Heukseok, Dongjak, Seoul 156-756, Korea

* Corresponding Author:
(Tel) +82-2-820-5328
(Mobile) +82-10-3267-5327
(Fax) +82-2-812-6474
(E-Mail) [email protected]

August, 2014

Manuscript for Engineering Failure Analysis (Revised)

(Presented at ICEFA 2014)
1
 ABSTRACT

Circumferential cracking was found in 304H stainless steel welds between the nozzle and
end-plate of a Stylene Monomer(SM) reactor serviced at 560°C. The cracks had been
repaired, but they repeatedly reappeared after two years of service.
Since this reactor and the relevant piping system were constructed as an addition between
two existing reactors through a change of process design, the nozzle and connected piping
were quite compact. Hence, the pipe system stress by thermal load was a concern. The system
stress analysis was conducted using AutoPipe, with the overall pipe modelling connecting the
three reactors. The model of 132m length included various expansion joints, elbows, pipe
supports, hangers, tees and reducers. Locations with high system stress were identified, and
the system load at the cracking location was determined.
The reactor was originally designed for 650°C, but was actually used at the much lower

temperature of 535~565°C. The local temperature difference along the height of the reactor
was not negligible, and could generate considerable thermal stress at the cracking location.
Detailed finite element analysis was conducted for the cracking location, using ABAQUS. An
axi-symmetric model was used for the reactor and the internals. The measured temperature
boundary conditions and the load boundary conditions obtained from the pipe stress analysis
were employed. Thermal stress, gravitational stress, and pressure stress were calculated at the
cracking location during the startup and shutdown as well as during the steady operation
period.
Finally, the metallurgical characteristics of 304H were investigated. The welding process of
the repair was checked. Reheat cracking or stress relaxation cracking was the most suspected
reason for cracking. Several suggestions were also made to prevent further cracking.

Keywords: 304H, Stainless Steel, High Temperature Reactor, Weld, Creep, PWHT, Stress
Relaxation Cracking, Reheat Cracking

2
1. Introduction

The residual operating life of thick-section components of high temperature plants is usually
determined by crack initiation and growth before leaking, or sudden fracture, not by
accumulated creep deformation before rupture [1,2]. In fossil power plant components such
as boiler headers and turbine casings enduring high internal pressure, the cracking
mechanism due to creep or creep-fatigue prevails [3]. On the other hand, in process plant
components such as chemical reactors the cracking mechanism due to stress-assisted
corrosion or stress relaxation cracking is more prevalent [4,5].
Stainless steels 304H, 316H, 321H and 347H with high carbon contents are widely used in
process plants, due to their high resistance to corrosion, and superior mechanical properties at
high temperature. However these austenitic stainless steels are vulnerable to sensitization,
stress corrosion cracking, and reheat or stress relaxation cracking, which are major concerns
in many high temperature applications in process plants [6-8].
In this study, a failure analysis was conducted for in-service cracking at the weld between a
high temperature reactor and an inlet nozzle pipe on the reactor, the material of which was
304H stainless steel. Piping stress analysis, local finite element analysis, and field replication
inspection of the microstructure were employed for failure analysis. Suggestions for
preventing further cracking are made, based on the findings obtained from the analysis.

2. Cracking History

Figure 1 shows the layout of the three Stylene Monomer reactors and location of the crack at
the weld between the top head of reactor 3 and the inlet nozzle pipe. In the original design,
only two reactors, Reactors 1 and 2 in Fig. 1, were operative. Reactor 3 and connecting pipes
had been additionally constructed in the compact space between these two reactors. Six years
later, the crack was first found during a shutdown for turn-around inspection. As shown in
Fig. 1(d), the cracks were found at the inner surface of the weld. Since the inlet nozzle is

3
connected to the internals in the reactor, the inlet pipe penetrates the head of the reactor, and
is welded, as shown in Fig. 2.
The length of the circumferential crack revealed during the inspection was 4,250mm, which
is 67% of the weld circumference, since the diameter of the nozzle pipe is 2,030mm. Similar
cracking also occurred repeatedly after two years, and after four years, with 2,430mm(38%)
and 5,350mm (84%) lengths, respectively, as shown in Fig. 2. The maximum depth was
approximately 25mm. These cracks were properly removed before restarting by careful repair
welding, using a multi-pass cold welding process without post-weld heat treatment. The
maximum inter-pass temperature for repair welding was recommended as 170°C by the
manufacturer (for the P-No.8 Grade 1&2 materials specified in ASME SEC IX QW-422).
This temperature limit was strictly followed during the repair.

3. Analysis and Inspection

It was recognized that a systematic cause of cracking must exist that excluded weld defect
or welding mistake, since the same type of cracking had been repeatedly occurred. As
probable causes of cracking the followings were considered: i) improper piping support and
hanger conditions leading to high thermal system load in overly constrained pipes, ii)
temperature difference in various locations of the head and the shell of the reactor, generating
high thermal stress, and iii) intrinsic material characteristics of 304H, making crack initiation
and growth inevitable, during service under specific conditions. Analysis and investigation
were made for checking each probable cause of the cracking mentioned above.

3.1 Pipe System Stress Analysis

The designed operating temperature of the reactors and connecting pipes was 650°C, and
the designed pressure was 0.07MPa. Pipe system stress analysis was conducted to find out the
magnitude of the maximum system load at the cracked location, caused by thermal distortion
under the given constraint conditions, during temperature increase from the room temperature

4
to operating temperature. If the locations of the piping supports and hanger load conditions at
the room temperature are not proper, unduly high system stress can be generated.
System stress analysis was conducted using AutoPipe[9], a commercial software for pipe
stress analysis according to the ASME B31.3 code of Process Piping[10]. Three reactors and
the connecting pipes were modeled based on the isometric drawings for pipe configuration.
Table 1 shows the detailed pipe specification of the system. The total length of the pipe was
132.8m, and 8 hangers, 8 elbows, 4 expansion joints, and 3 tees were included in the model.
Figure 3 shows the resulting model. Each reactor was considered as a large-diameter pipe.
The head of Reactor 3 where the cracking had occurred was modeled as a reducer, which had
a linear change of diameter. The heads of the other reactors were simply modeled as flat
plates. All the hangers were constant-load hanger types which had unvarying load application.
The cold loads of each hanger specified in the design drawings were applied as initial loading
condition. Two different types of expansion joints were installed i.e., hinged type and double-
gimbal type. The hinged type could release bending load in a single direction, but the other
loads were restrained. The Double-Gimbal type could release both bending in two directions,
and shear load in two directions. The direction of constraint of the expansion joints were
confirmed by on-site inspection.
Two cases of temperature conditions were analyzed. In the first case, all components were
assumed to be under the uniform temperature of 650°C which is the design temperature. By
comparing the pipe displacement results of several specific locations under 650°C with those
in the drawings of the original design, we can verify accuracy and reliability of the model
used in this analysis. In the second analysis, temperature distributions under the actual
operating conditions were employed as shown in Fig. 3. The local temperatures in the pipe
and reactors were in the range of 535°C~600°C. In Reactor 3, the temperature tended to
decrease along the height of the reactor, because of heat absorption reaction inside of the
reactor. In the pipes, the temperature was assumed to be constant.
In the analysis, the internal pressure load, gravitational load of each component and thermal
load were considered. For each stress determining point among the total 44 points, the Von
Mises stress was determined from the contributions of sustain stress, hoop stress and thermal

5
stress at the point. From the analysis results, we could identify the point locations at which
high stress could cause any cracking risk.

3.2 Finite Element Analysis

For assessing the stress applied to the crack at the weld between the reactor and the inlet
nozzle during the actual operation, finite element analyses were conducted using a detailed
local finite element model. Actual operating temperature boundary conditions measured by
the thermocouples installed in the reactor were applied. Also the load boundary conditions
determined from the pipe system stress analysis mentioned in section 3.1 were used.

Finite Element Modeling

An axisymmetric model was made using ABAQUS software for investigating the behavior
of the reactor 3. Totally 7,415 thermally coupled axisymmetric quadrilateral, reduced
integration (CAX4RT) elements were generated with fine mesh concentrated at the crack
region and inner surface of vessel. Figure 4 shows a 3-dimentional model of the reactor 3 and
the applied boundary conditions. The nozzle, seal-package ring, end-plate, shell and bottom
plate were included in the axisymmetric model. The other internals were not modeled since
they’re independently moving to the modeled parts of the reactor. Calcium Silicate insulation
with 200 mm thickness was modeled to be attached to the reactor outer surface. Inner surface
of the vessel was divided into 5 regions to apply the different temperatures of the reactor
which was measured by thermocouples actually installed inside. Flow speed in the inlet tube
must be higher than that in the reactor. Hence, higher heat convection coefficient was applied
at the nozzle as shown in Fig. 4. Outer surface of insulation was first set at ambient
temperature and typical values of heat transfer coefficients were used. Coefficient of
convection was 25W/m2 oC and heat conduction coefficient was 0.06~0.10 25W/m oC [11].
Absolute pressures were applied to either surfaces of the reactor. At the inner surface the
pressure was 0.07MPa while the outer surface it was equal to the atmospheric pressure of
0.1MPa. Effect of system loads was considered by applying upward vertical load of 268kN to
the top of the nozzle. Figure 5 shows schematic temperature change during startup, steady

6
operation and shutdown operations. Even though the steady operation time must be much
longer, it was assumed to be 6 days since this time is long enough for stabilizing the thermal
stress.

Mechanical Properties
Mechanical properties as a function of temperature are needed for the analysis. The
properties of SA240-304H were obtained from the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
Section II, Part D [12]. Temperature dependent mechanical and thermal properties employed
in this analysis are plotted in Fig. 6. For the properties of Calcium Silicate insulation data
given in ASTM standard C533 was used [13].

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Pipe System Stress

For verifying the accuracy of the pipe system stress analysis, comparisons of the pipe
movement obtained from the current analysis were made with the designed movement
conditions specified at the pipe component drawing. Table 2 shows the comparisons of the
movements at major hanger locations after the pipe temperature was increased from the room
temperature. The maximum difference was 36 mm at hanger location 4 and in the most cases
the differences were not significant. Since the types of installed hangers and expansion joints
confirmed by field inspection were different from those in the designed drawings, the small
differences shown in Table 2 can support accuracy of the current analysis.
In Table 3 and in Fig. 7, the top 5 highest system stress values and their locations are shown
under design temperature condition of 650°C and under the actual operating condition of
560°C. Also the stress level at the crack location is listed in Table 3. In Fig. 7 the sorting
ranking of the stress is indicated at the crack location. In the first case for which designed
temperature and designed expansion joint conditions were considered, the highest stress
occurred at the elbows in piping between the reactor 2 and the reactor 3 as shown in Fig. 7(a).
This may be because the piping has quite complicated connections having 5 elbows in a
7
relatively short length. The maximum stress of 93.98 MPa is less than the yield strength of
100 MPa at 650°C. In the second case for which the actually measured temperature and
expansion joint conditions were considered, the highest stress also occurred at the piping
between the reactor 2 and 3 but it was at another elbow location near the reactor 3 as shown
in Fig 7(b). The stress values of top 5 locations were higher than the first case. The maximum
stress was 137.8 MPa at 560°C. This is higher than the yield strength but much less than the
tensile strength of 400 MPa.
In both cases the stress at the cracking location were appeared relatively small as about 4~5
MPa. These are less than 5% of the yield strength. The ranking of the stress at the cracking
location is also very low, which is 37 and 43 respectively in each case. These are negligibly
small level of the stress. Since hangers and expansion joints are installed right above the
crack location, most of the thermal stresses seemed to be absorbed by these expansion joints.
Even in the worst case in which we assumed the all of the expansion joints does not work
properly, the calculated stress value at the cracking location was as low as 16.67 MPa. Hence,
it can be argued that the system stresses due to thermal constraint of the pipes are not the
reason of the cracking. The utility’s concern that improper piping support or hanger
conditions introduced during construction of the additional reactor 3 may lead high thermal
system stresses in overly constrained pipes is proven not to be the cause of cracking.

4.2 Thermal Stresses at Cracked Location

Temperature changes of the reactor at the locations where the thermocouples are installed
are shown in Fig. 8. At five different regions temperatures were monitored during startup,
steady operation and shutdown processes. Temperature of the inlet nozzle was lower and that
of the skirt of the reactor was higher compared with the other locations. Temperature at the
crack location was also shown in the same figure, obtained from finite element analysis.
During the startup, stress at the crack location was compressive even though the startup
operation was conducted quite slowly for three days. The maximum compressive stress was
about -100 MPa. This stress becomes tensile when the steady operating temperature was
attained. At a lower steady operating temperature obtained after the startup the stress at the
crack location was 35.8MPa and at a higher steady operating temperature right before the

8
shutdown process the stress was 84.3MPa. During the most of the operating period, the
temperature at the crack location was varying from the lower operation temperature to the
higher operating temperature. Hence, the stress at the crack location is changing between
35.8MPa and 84.3MPa. High tensile stress of 160MPa was obtained during the shutdown
process as shown in Fig. 8. Therefore, the stress range during a cyclic operation was -
100MPa ~ 160MPa if creep relaxation is not considered.
Figure 9 shows the stress contour near the crack location. All the contour plots were
captured at the same time during the steady operation condition, which shows Von Mises
stress, maximum principal stress and radial stress. Since the sign of stress is not known for
the Von Mises stress, compressive or tensile stress cannot be identified. On the contrary, both
of magnitude and sign of the stress are known for the maximum principal stress or for the
radial stress. Either can be used for evaluating the crack opening stress of the weld crack
found at the reactor 3. Because the cracking occurred along the circumferential direction as
shown in Fig. 2, the radial stress direction is almost perpendicular to the crack, which means
the radial stress is a crack opening stress. Hence, the stress in Fig 9(c) is almost same as the
stress in Fig. 9(b). Either stress value can be used for evaluating the causes and seriousness of
cracking in later discussions.

4.3 Cause of Cracking

The design temperature of the reactor was 650°C. According to the service temperature
recommended in ASM Handbook [14] shown in Table 4, 304H can be a proper choice in
design since its recommended temperature range is 595oC ~ 815oC. However, actual service
temperature of the reactor was around 560 oC, which is lower than even the minimum bound
of the recommended service temperature for 304H. Since 304H is known to be sensitive to
post-weld heat treatment(PWHT) and accompanying cracking, 9Cr steel such as SA387
Grade 9 or Grade 91 may be a better choice if the operating temperature is not higher than
600 oC and allowable stress condition is acceptable.
High carbon austenitic stainless steel such as 304H is prone to “reheat cracking” or “stress
relaxation cracking” [7-8, 15-17]. Thus, one of these cracking modes is the most suspected
reason of the reactor cracking.

9
 Reheat cracking usually occurs during the PWHT period or within a short period after
service. During welding process, alloy carbides are dissolved in the weld and in the HAZ
near the fusion line. The carbides precipitate within the grain during the PWHT or at the early
stage of service, which makes the grain strengthened and prevents grain deformation at high
temperature. If the fine precipitates are formed at the grain boundary these will weaken the
grain boundaries. Resultingly, deformation is concentrated at the grain boundary causing the
intergranular cracking when the residual stress caused by welding is relaxed during the
PWHT or during the early stage of the service.
Differently from the reheat cracking, stress relaxation cracking usually occurs when the
welded part is exposed to the service temperature of 500oC~700oC for a period of 10,000 to
100,000 hours [7]. The precipitation mechanism for intergranular cracking is same as the
reheat cracking. But the cracking stresses can come from different sources like high
constraint of narrow weldments in heavy-section of a vessel or stress concentrating geometry
of the weld.
In this case of study, the first cracking was found 6 years after the reactor had been put into
service. Shop welding and proper heat treatment for dissolving all carbides to maintain a
solid solution had been conducted before field installation of the reactor. Hence, it can be
argued that the stress relaxation cracking is more probable to be occurred than the reheat
cracking in several years during service at temperature of 560oC. The finite element analysis
results showed that the tensile stress at the weld crack location during steady operation was
84MPa which is about 84% of the yield strength. Hence, the carbide precipitated
progressively under the high stress condition due to stress concentration at the cracking
location, eventually appearing as the intergranular crack at the weld as shown in Fig. 10. The
crack was formed at the weld as well as at the HAZ region. This can also be confirmed in Fig.
1(d).
These cracks were removed by gouging and field repair-welding was conducted with
ER308H filler metal. Multi-pass cold welding was employed without the PWHT to prevent
reheat cracking of 304H. Inter-pass temperature was controlled under 170oC. However,
similar type of cracking was found repeatedly during the turn-around inspection after two
years of service. Since the operating conditions such as the service temperature of 560oC and

10
the high local stress of 84.3MPa was not changed, a similar intergranular cracking
mechanism was existing and it is not surprising that the stress relaxation cracking occurred
again. This repeated cracking can be expected since generally quality of the field-welding
cannot be better than that of the shop-welding particularly when the weld band is narrow and
the reactor shell is quite thick like this case. Shalaby[16] also reported a case that repair
welded 304H stainless steel pipes suffered chromium carbide precipitated at slip bands inside
the grain and along the grain boundary causing sensitization of the alloy. Hence, intergranular
cracking occurred at the presence of corrosive environment. To some extent, intrinsic
material characteristics of 304H made crack initiation and growth inevitable during service
under the specific condition particularly when the field welding for narrow weld and thick
component is involved.

4.4 Prevention of Cracking

For preventing susceptible stress relaxation cracking of the 304H steel, annealing heat
treatment of the weld at 850 oC for 2 hours is recommended for reducing the welding residual
stress level and also for obtaining coarse carbide precipitations instead of fine precipitations
weakening the grain boundaries[17]. Fast heating to the annealing temperature without
quenching was recommended. Eliminating of the quenching step makes this heat treatment
more adaptable, coping with difficulty of dealing with the narrow band welding with large
components of the reactor shell. Because the reactor had been in service for ten years, ageing
of the base metal of the shell was in progress causing carbide precipitate in the base metal.
Welding with the aged base metal is more challenging than that with the virgin base metal.
Consideration of the pre-aged microstructure should be made too. After the field-weld repair
removing the cracking of the second appearance, the microstructure of the weld was obtained
by field-replication as shown in Fig. 11 [18]. The base metal, HAZ and weld metal is shown
in Fig 11(a), (b) and (c) respectively. The base metal near the HAZ shown in Fig. 11(b) does
not show any carbide precipitation. On the other hand the base in Fig. 11(a) shows carbide
precipitation at the grain boundary as well as in the gran. This may be due to ageing not for
the repair welding.

11
 In order to diminish the high stress of 84.3MPa at the cracking region due to notch
concentration, the root radius of the region can be adjusted to decrease the applied stress
during steady operation. Figure 12 shows decrease of the maximum stress as the root radius
increament. The current root radius is 10 mm. If the root radius becomes 20 mm the
maximum stress is 63.8 MPa and for 30 mm root radius the stress is decreased to 55 MPa.
Therefore, slight increase of the radius can reduce the maximum stress considerably.
Another factor affecting the stress relaxation cracking is grain size of the steel. Coarse grain
is more susceptible than fine grain materials [19]. This must be considered when the shell is
originally fabricated.

5. Conclusions

Investigation of cracking at 304H stainless steel weld in a chemical reactor during service at
560oC was conducted. Based on the piping stress analysis, local finite element analysis and
field replication inspection results conclusions were made as follows:
 Results of the system stress analysis including all piping, hangers, expansion joints
and reactors confirmed that the system stress due to self-weight, internal pressure
and thermal load caused by improper constraint was not the reason of cracking.
 During the steady operating of the reactor, tensile stress of 84MPa was maintained at
the crack location. This stress is 84% of yield strength at temperature 560oC and
contributed to the driving stress for stress relaxation cracking.
 The “stress relaxation cracking” is the most probable cause of cracking. The carbides
precipitate within the grain at about 560oC after service time over 10,000 hours,
which makes the grain strengthened and prevents grain deformation at the
temperature. The fine precipitates are formed at the grain boundaries, which
weakens the grain boundaries. Consequently the intergranular cracking occurred.

12
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Energy Efficiency & Resources Core Technology Program
(No. 20132010500060) of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning
(KETEP), granted financial resource from the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy,
Republic of Korea. Mr. Jong Min Yu was supported for this research by the Chung-Ang
University Excellent Student Scholarship. The authors deeply appreciate Mr. Yong Seog
Choi and Mr. Kwang Chul Park for sharing the company’s technical information.

13
References
[1] A. Saxena, Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics for Engineers, (USA): CRC Press; 1998
[2] N. H. Lee, S. Kim, B. H. Choe, K. B. Yoon D. I. Kwon, Failure analysis of a boiler tube
in USC coal power plant, Eng Fail Anal 2009; 16(7):2031-2035
[3] K. B. Yoon, T. G. Park, A. Saxena, Creep crack growth analysis of elliptic surface cracks
in pressure vessels, Int J Pres Ves Pip 2003; 80(7-8):465-479.
[4] G. Yang, K. B. Yoon, Y. C. Moon, Stress corrosion cracking of stainless steel pipes for
methyl-methacrylate process plants, Eng Fail Anal; 2013; 29(4):45-55.
[5] C. S. Oh, Y. J. Kim, K. B. Yoon, Elastic-plastic behaviors of pressure tubes under cyclic
thermal stresses with temperature gradients, Int J Pres Ves Pip 2010; 87:245–253.
[6] ASM International, ASM Metals Handbook Vol. 6 Welding, Brazing and Soldering; 1993
[7] J. C. Lippold, D. J. Kotecki, Welding Metallurgy and Weldability of Stainless Steels,
(USA): John Wiley & Sons; 2005
[8] Y. Gao, C. Zhang, X. Xiong, Z. Zheng, M Zhu, Intergranular corrosion susceptibility of a
novel Super304H stainless steel, Eng Fail Anal; 2012; 24(9):26-32
[9] AutoPIPE V8i(SELECTseries 3) Tutorial Manual, Bentley Systems Inc., 2011
[10] ASME B31.3 Process Piping. ASME, NY, USA ; 2010
[11] P. P. Incropera, Principles of Heat and Mass Transfer, Seventh Ed., Wiley; 2012
[12] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code II Part D : Properties. ASME, NY, USA ; 2010
[13] Standard specification for Calcium Silicate Block and Pipe Thermal Insulation, ASTM
C533-95
[14] ASM Handbook Volume 6 : Welding, Brazing and Soldering, ASM International ; 1993
[15] N. Parnian, Failure analysis of austenitic stainless steel tubes in a gas fired steam heater,
Materials and Design ; 2012; 36(4):788-795
[16] H. M. Shalaby, W. T. Riad, Failure investigation of gas inlet chamber, Eng Fail Anal;
2008; 15(1):38-42
[17] V. Moura, Y. A. Kina, S. S. M. Tavares, M. M. S. G. de Faria, F. B. Mainier,
Investigation of cracks and sensitization in an AISI 304L stainless steel exposed to 500-
600℃, Eng Fail Anal; 2009; 16(1):545-551

14
[18] Y. S. Choi and K. C. Park, SM plant in-field replication report, private communication;
2011
[19] L. E. Shoemaker, G. D. Smith, B. A. Baker, and J. M. Poole, Fabricating nickel alloys to
avoid stress relaxation cracking, Paper No. 07421, NACE International Corrosion 2007
Conference & Expo, 2007

15
List of Tables

Table 1 Specifications of the reactor and pipe system

Table 2 Comparison of hanger movements between the designed condition and the current
analysis results

Table 3 Results of the pipe system stress analysis (sorted by the Von Mises stress at each
location)

Table 4 Service temperature and allowable stress for high temperature pressure vessel steel
recommended by ASM Handbook [14]

16
List of Figures

Fig. 1 Cracking location at the weld between nozzle and top head of the reactor 3 : (a) layout
of three reactors, (b) drawing of top head and inlet nozzle on the reactor, (c) outer
surface of location of cracking, (d) crack at the inner surface of the weld

Fig. 2 Shape and depth of the cracks found at the weld in the reactor during periodic
inspections

Fig. 3 Modeling of three reactors and connecting pipes for system stress analysis under
operating temperature condition using AutoPipe

Fig. 4 Finite element model and applied boundary conditions for the reactor 3

Fig. 5 Temperature variation during startup, steady-operation and shutdown process

Fig. 6 Mechanical and thermal properties of 304H steel as a function of temperature : (a)
elastic modulus, yield strength and tensile strength, (b) specific heat, thermal expansion
and thermal conductivity

Fig. 7 Results of the pipe system stress analysis showing the highest top five stress locations
and ranking of the crack location under (a) the design temperature condition and (b) the
operating condition

Fig. 8 Temperature changes during the startup, steady-operation and shutdown processes and
accompanying thermal stress at the cracking location

Fig. 9 Magnitude stresses at the cracking location during the steady-operation condition (a)
von Mises stress, (b) maximum principal stress and (c) radial stress

Fig. 10 Intergranular shape of cracking at the weld, appeared after gouging

Fig. 11 Microstructure of the weld obtained by field-replication after completing in-field

repair : (a) base metal of the reactor, (b) heat affected zone, (c) weld metal

Fig. 12 Decrease of the maximum stress in the cracking location of the weld as the root radius
is increasing

17
Table 1 Specifications of the reactor and pipe system
Component Name Outer Diameter (mm) Wall Thick.(mm) Material

Pipe 2,148 20 SA240-304H

Reator 1 3,200 30 SA240-304H
2 4,000 30 SA240-304H
3 4,560 30 SA240-304H
Expansion Joint 2,507 1.5 SA240-304H
Insulation 200 Calcium Silicate
Cladding 2 Aluminum

18
Table 2 Comparison of hanger movements between the designed condition and the current
analysis results

Hanger Movement(mm) Difference

Position Direction Designed Current Analysis (mm)
x 70 43 27
1 y 195 216 -21
z -73 -82 9
x 33 37 -4
2 y 254 276 -22
z -73 -81 8
x 88 102 -14
3 y 270 281 -11
z -1 2 -3
x 99 124 -25
4 y 115 151 -36
z -81 -90 9
x 53 59 -6
5 y 142 146 -4
z -22 -22 0
x 1 1 0
6 y 228 242 -14
z 0 1 -1
x 0 0 0
7 y 59 48 11
z -47 -53 6
x -42 -28 -14
8 y 67 97 -30
z -75 -84 9

19
Table 3 Results of the pipe system stress analysis (sorted by the Von Mises stress at each
location)

Analysis Von Mises Sustain Hoop Expansion

Rank
Condition stress (MPa) stress(MPa) stress(MPa) stress(MPa)
1 93.98 54.94 4.27 20.34
2 46.66 31.52 4.27 8.43
Design 3 39.86 47.65 4.27 23.53
Condition 4 36.16 22.59 6.05 5.83
5 35.78 46.02 4.27 26.02
crack
4.97 3.66 4.27 0.01
location
1 137.8 103.2 4.27 0
2 131.8 99.81 4.27 0
Operating 3 58.29 43.52 4.27 0
Condition 4 53.18 39.56 4.27 0
5 44.42 32.97 4.27 0
crack
4.07 2.01 4.27 0
location

20
Table 4 Service temperature and allowable stress for high temperature pressure vessel steel
recommended by ASM Handbook [14]

Normal Allowable Allowable

ASME Alloy & Temperature Stress at Low Stress at High
Material Nominal Range End Temp End Temp
Number Composition
(°C) (MPa) (MPa)
SA 387 Grade 112 1.25Cr-0.5Mo 455-565 101 32
SA 387 Grade 22 2.25Cr-1.0Mo 455- 99 40
SA 387 Grade 9 9.0Cr-1.0Mo 510-595 73 22
SA 387 Grade 91 9.0Cr-1.0Mo
540-650 99 28
(Ni,V,Nb,N, Al)
SA 240 Grade 304H Austenitic SS
595-815 61 9.7
18Cr-8Ni

21
Fig. 1 Cracking location at the weld between nozzle and top head of the reactor 3 : (a) layout
of three reactors, (b) drawing of top head and inlet nozzle on the reactor, (c) outer
surface of location of cracking, (d) crack at the inner surface of the weld

22
Fig. 2 Shape and depth of the cracks found at the weld in the reactor during periodic
inspections

23
Fig. 3 Modeling of three reactors and connecting pipes for system stress analysis under
operating temperature condition using AutoPipe

24
Fig. 4 Finite element model and applied boundary conditions for the reactor 3

25
Fig. 5 Temperature variation during startup, steady-operation and shutdown process

26
 (a)

Thermal conductivity (W.m-1C-1)

Thermal expansion (x10-6.C-1)

24 580
Specific heat capacity
Specific heat (J.Kg-1.C-1)

Thermal expansion
Thermal conductivity 560
22
Material: SA240-304H
540
20
520
18
500

16
480

14 460
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Temperature (oC)
(b)

Fig. 6 Mechanical and thermal properties of 304H steel as a function of temperature : (a)
elastic modulus, yield strength and tensile strength, (b) specific heat, thermal expansion
and thermal conductivity

27
Fig. 7 Results of the pipe system stress analysis showing the highest top five stress locations
and ranking of the crack location under (a) the design temperature condition and (b) the
operating condition

28
 200 700
Stress
Temp
150 Zone 4 600
Zone 3

Temperature (oC)
Zone 2
500
100 Zone_1
Stress (MPa)

Nozzle
400
50
300
0
200
-50
100
-100
0

-150
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Time (day)

Fig. 8 Temperature changes during the startup, steady-operation and shutdown processes and
accompanying thermal stress at the cracking location

29
 (a) (b) (c)
Fig. 9 Stress magnitudes at the cracking location during the steady-operation condition (a)
von Mises stress, (b) maximum principal stress and (c) radial stress

30
Fig. 10 Intergranular shape of cracking at the weld, appeared after gouging

31
 (a) base metal of reactor

(b) heat affected zone

(c) weld metal

Fig. 11 Microstructure of the weld obtained by field-replication after completing in-field

repair : (a) base metal of the reactor, (b) heat affected zone, (c) weld metal

32
Fig. 12 Decrease of the maximum stress in the cracking location of the weld as the root radius
is increasing

33
Highlights

 Repeated cracking problem occurred at repaired 304H stainless steel weld in a thick reactor
operated at 560°C was investigated.
 Stress relaxation cracking is shown to be the most probable cause of cracking. The carbides
precipitated within the grain makes the grain strengthened and prevents grain deformation at
high temperature. The fine precipitates are formed at the grain boundaries, which weakens
the grain boundaries. Consequently the intergranular cracking occurred.
 Finite element analysis considering local temperature difference of the reactor, insulation
condition are conducted for a chemical reactor.
 System stress analysis were conducted with a model including all piping, hangers,
expansion joints and reactors confirmed that the system stress due to self-weight,
internal pressure and thermal load caused by improper constraint was not the reason
of cracking.