API 579 Hotspot Task Group

August 29, 2017 Update

Brighton Engineering Solutions Ltd. Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Sam Tseung, Kevin Suen, Henry Kwok

1
All Rights Reserved
 Background

Professor Seshadri developed a method to evaluate the

reduced structural integrity due to a hotspot on a
cylindrical shell

Objective: ANSYS is used to simulate hot spots in 2 real

world problems and the FEA results are compared to
API 579 draft hotspot proposal.

All Rights Reserved 2

 Assessment Limitation

1. Assessment procedure only applies to pressure

components and hotspots that are below creep
temperature.
2. Damage Aspect Ratio
1
3
3
3. Extend of Circumferential Damage
3
2 min 2 12.6 ,
4
All Rights Reserved 3
 Plans

Task 1: Hotspot problems on hydrogen manufacturing

plant transfer header
Task 2: Hotspot problems on de-sulfurization reactor
Task 3: Test level 2 method against different degree of
circumferential extent

All Rights Reserved 4

 Task 1: Hydrogen Manufacturing Unit -
Header Hotspot

Header material: SA-387, Grade 11, Class 2

1.25 Cr Mo Si
Hotspot temperature : 600 F
Header design temperature: 400 F
Design Pressure: 551 psig
Yield Strength at 600 F: 35.3 ksi
Yield Strength at 400 F: 37.9 ksi
The temperature and size of hotspots on ANSYS are based on
thermograph results.

All Rights Reserved 5

 Exploring Three Different Hotspot
Sizing Tactics

Three hotspot sizing methods are used to interpret

Seshadris method of analyzing the hotspot
1. Peak Temperature Sizing
2. Conservative Hotspot Sizing
3. Real Temperature Profile

All Rights Reserved 6

 Exploring Different Tactics of Hotspot
Sizing

Sizing method 1:
Peak hotspot temperature sizing only uses areas
of 600 F or greater for FEA. (PEAK SIZING
METHOD)

(2a) 8 in

(2b) 16 in

All Rights Reserved 7

 Different Tactics of Hotspot Sizing,
contd

Sizing method 2:
A more conservative hotspot sizing method is used for
FEA. All temperature above 400F design temperature are
considered as 600F. Dark blue is 400F. (CONSERVATIVE
SIZING METHOD)

(2a) 17 in

(2b) 22 in

All Rights Reserved 8

 Different Tactics of Hotspot Sizing,
contd

Sizing method 3:
A real hotspot temperature profile is used which accounts for all
temperature values of the hotspot. (REAL TEMPERATURE
PROFILE)
This method includes also temperature dependent yield
strengths, Youngs Modulus, thermal conductivities, and
coefficient of thermal expansion which are input into simulation
material property.
The RSF value calculated using this sizing method is of our own
interest, since we cannot directly compare to Seshadris (Level 2)
method, as it only allows for one hotspot temperature.

All Rights Reserved 9

 HMU Header

The Remaining Strength Factor (RSF) are determined by

LEVEL 2 method for each run.

=

= Limit Load Multiplier for damaged shell
= Limit Load Multiplier for undamaged shell

FEA method uses limit load determination method,

using elastic-perfectly-plastic material behavior.

All Rights Reserved 10

 Remaining Strength Factor Level 2
Method

The parameter of interest when comparing the level 2

and level 3 methods is the remaining strength factor
(RSF).
The RSF using level 2 method calculates the ratio of the
damage and undamaged limit load multiplier.
Comparing this parameter to FEA method gives us an
idea how the level 2 method accurately predicts the
remaining strength of the structure.

All Rights Reserved 11

 Bulging Limit Check

In each of the three tasks, a bulging limit check is performed

on conservative hotspot sizing only.
To obtain the bulge displacement of the hotspot, an input of
an elastic plastic stress strain curve into ANSYS material
property, equipment operating temperatures and design
pressure are required to run the simulation.
The bulge displacement is then compared to its limit.
Bulge displacement limit equation (membrane strain limit 1%):
1

1.01
= 1.585
+

All Rights Reserved 12

 Case 1a: Peak Temperature Sizing

FEA Results
16 x 8 hotspot
Internal pressure applied: 15,000 psi
Time of last converging solution: 0.153 s
Structural Steel Damaged, 600 F
Limit load calculated: 2297.0 psi Hotspot
Design Pressure (max) : 1531.3 psi
Remaining Strength Factor: 0.975
Structural Steel Undamaged, 400 F

All Rights Reserved 13

 Case 1b: Real Temperature Profile

FEA Results
Internal pressure applied: 15,000 psi
Time of last converging solution: 0.153 s
Limit load calculated: 2296.5 psi Hotspot Temperature
Profile
Design Pressure (max) : 1531.0 psi
Remaining Strength Factor: 0.975
Temperature dependent Youngs
Modulus, Thermal Expansion,
Thermal Conductivity, and yield
strength

All Rights Reserved 14

 Case 1c: Conservative Hotspot Sizing

FEA Results
22 x 17 hotspot
Internal pressure applied: 15,000 psi
Time of last converging solution: 0.152 s
Structural Steel Damaged
Limit load calculated: 2273.4 psi 600 F Hotspot
Design Pressure (max) : 1515.6 psi
Remaining Strength Factor: 0.965
Structural Steel Undamaged, 400 F

All Rights Reserved 15

 Case 1c: Conservative Hotspot Sizing
Bulging Limit Check

Bulge radial displacement: 0.128 in

Bulge radial displacement limit: 0.452 in
0.128 in < 0.452 in : Bulge displacement is within the limit

All Rights Reserved 16

 Temperature Profile

All Rights Reserved 17

 Hot Spot Dimension Input Example-
Level 2

Hotspot Level 2 Evaluation

Thickness, in 0.945

Outer Radius, in 18.00

(2a) 8 in
Half damage extend in axial direction (b), 8.00
in
Half Damage Extend in Circumferential 4.00
Direction (a), in
(2b) 16 in
Internal Pressure, psi 551

Yield Strength Undamaged, psi 37,900

Yield Strength Damaged, psi 35,200

All Rights Reserved 18

 Remaining Strength Factor FEA
Method

The RSF determined from FEA simulation is the ratio of

the limit load with hotspot on divided by the limit load
with no hotspot.
FEA Method: No FEA Method: No FEA Method: No Thermal
Thermal Load (Peak Thermal Load Load (Real Temperature
Temperature Sizing) (Conservative Hotspot Profile)
Sizing)
RSF 0.975 0.965 0.975

All Rights Reserved 19

 Summary: FEA Results Compared to
Level 2 Hotspot Method for Task 1

Level 2 Hotspot Level 2 Hotspot FEA Method: (Peak FEA Method: FEA Method: (Real
Method (Peak Method Temperature Sizing)1 (Conservative Temperature Profile)3
Temperature Sizing)1 (Conservative Hotspot Sizing)2
Hotspot Sizing)2
RSF 0.948 0.936 0.975 0.965 0.975
Difference ----- ----- +0.027 +0.029 -----
Variance ----- ----- +2.85% +3.10% -----
Percentage

1: Hotspot region of 600 F or greater is used for the hotspot dimension

2: All temperature above 400 F design temperature are considered as 600 F
3: Actual temperature profile input in FEA
Comparisons are made between level 2 and FEA Peak Temperature sizing as well as level 2 and FEA Conservative
Hotspot Sizing

All Rights Reserved 20

 Conclusions (TASK 1)

RSF percent variance between FEA and LEVEL 2 method is

2.85% - 3.10%. Very good correlation.
LEVEL 2 method results are conservative when compared to
the FEA (Level 3) results.
Conservative Hotspot Sizing method results in lower RSF.
Task 2 (De-Sulfurization Reactor) uses conservative
hotspot sizing method.
Since hot-spot is fit-for-service, no external steam or air
quenching is required.
All Rights Reserved 21
 Task 2: De-Sulfurization Reactor
Hotspot (Division 2)

Von-Mises stress is used to calculate the RSF

Header material: SA-387, Grade 11, Class 2
1.25 Cr Mo Si , externally insulated.
Peak hotspot temperature : 825 F
Reactor design temperature: 650 F
Design Pressure: 750 psi
Yield Strength at 825 F: 32.1 ksi
Yield Strength at 650 F: 34.6 ksi
Wall Thickness : 2.39 in
CASE 2a : 45 x 35 hot spot CASE 2b: 72 x 58 hotspot

All Rights Reserved 22

 Case 2a: 45 inch x 35 inch Conservative
Hotspot Sizing
FEA Results
Internal pressure applied: 15,000 psi
Time of last converging solution: 0.0854 s
Limit load calculated: 1280.625 psi Structural Steel Damaged, 825 F
Hotspot
Design Pressure (max) : 853.75 psi
Remaining Strength Factor: 0.976

Structural Steel Undamaged, 650 F

All Rights Reserved 23

 De-sulfurization Case 2a Temperature
Profile

All Rights Reserved 24

 Case 2a: 45 inch x 35 inch Conservative
Hotspot Sizing Bulging Limit Check

Bulge radial displacement: 0.548 in

Bulge radial displacement limit: 0.928 in
0.548 in < 0.928 in : Bulge displacement is within the limit

All Rights Reserved 25

 Case 2b: 72 inch x 58 inch Conservative
Hotspot Sizing

FEA Results
Internal pressure applied: 15,000 psi
Time of last converging solution: 0.0828 s
Limit load calculated: 1242.20 psi
Design Pressure (max) : 828.13 psi
Remaining Strength Factor: 0.946

All Rights Reserved 26

 De-sulfurization Case 2b Temperature
Profile

All Rights Reserved 27

 Case 2b: 72 inch x 58 inch Conservative
Hotspot Sizing Bulging Limit Check

Bulge radial displacement: 0.644 in

Bulge radial displacement limit: 1.516 in
0.644 in < 1.516 in : Bulge displacement is within the limit

All Rights Reserved 28

 Summary: FEA Results Compared to
Level 2 Hotspot Method for Task 2

Conservative Case 2a Level 2 Case 2b Level 2 Case 2a FEA Case 2b FEA

Hotspot Hotspot Method Hotspot Method Method Method
Sizing1 (45 in x 35 in) (72 in x 58 in) (45 in x 35 in) (72 in x 58 in)

RSF 0.946 0.930 0.976 0.946

Difference ----- ----- +0.03 +0.016
Variance ----- ----- +3.14% +1.77%
Percentage

Real Temperature Case 2a FEA Method Case 2b FEA Method

Profile2 (45 in x 35 in) (72 in x 58 in)

RSF 0.982 0.965

1: All temperature above 650 F design temperature are considered as 825 F

2: Actual temperature profile input in FEA
Comparisons are made between level 2 results with FEA Conservative Hotspot Sizing results.

All Rights Reserved 29

 Bulging Checks Summarized

Case 2a (45 in x 35 in) Case 2b (72 in x 58 in)

Radial Bulging
0.548 0.644
Displacement, in
Radial Bulge
0.928 1.516
Displacement Limit, in
Check Against Bulging Pass Pass

All Rights Reserved 30

 Conclusion (TASK 2)

The RSF variance percentage are in the range of 1.77% -

3.14%, comparing the Level 2 method with FEA results. The
Level 2 method is conservative.
Similar to the Task 1 results, the Level 2 method using the
conservative hot-spot sizing methods yields conservative
results.
At hot-spot temperature of 825F, the materials is at the
onset of creep temperature regime. Recommendation is to
reduce/remove external insulation to reduce metal
temperature down to 800F. ( Using a rain shield locally)

All Rights Reserved 31

 Conclusion (TASK 2) - External
Insulation Removed at Hotspot

All Rights Reserved 32

 Task 3: Catalyst Transfer Line Hotspot
(Division 1)

Max principal stress is used to calculate the RSF

Header material: SA-516, Grade 70
Peak hotspot temperature : 700 F
Design temperature: 300 F
Design Pressure: 420 psi
Yield Strength at 700 F: 27.2 ksi
Yield Strength at 300 F: 33.6 ksi
Wall Thickness : 0.375 in

All Rights Reserved 33

 Task 3 Cases

Case 3a: 18 x 6 hotspot

Case 3b: 24 x 8 hotspot
Case 3c: 48 x 16 hotspot
Case 3d: 240 x 80 hotspot

All cases assume conservative hotspot sizing and maintain

a constant damage aspect ratio, = 3

All Rights Reserved 34

 Task 3 Cases, Contd

Out of the four cases, only case 3c (48 x 16) and case
3d (240 x 80) exceed the circumferential extent rule:
3
2 min 2 12.6 ,
4
Only case 3d hotspot exceeds the circumference of the
catalyst transfer line:
2 + 2 > 2

All Rights Reserved 35

 Task 3 Temperature Profile Case 3a

All Rights Reserved 36

 Case 3a 18 inch x 6 inch Hotspot
Bulging Check

Bulge radial displacement: 0.179 in

Bulge radial displacement limit: 0.199 in
0.179 in < 0.199 in : Bulge displacement is within the limit

All Rights Reserved 37

 Task 3 Temperature Profile Case 3b

All Rights Reserved 38

 Case 3b 24 inch x 8 inch Hotspot
Bulging Check

Bulge radial displacement: 0.195 in

Bulge radial displacement limit: 0.265 in
0.195 in < 0.265 in : Bulge displacement is within the limit

All Rights Reserved 39

 Task 3 Temperature Profile Case 3c

All Rights Reserved 40

 Case 3c 48 inch x 16 inch Hotspot
Bulging Check

Bulge radial displacement: 0.171 in

Bulge radial displacement limit: 0.530 in
0.171 in < 0.530 in : Bulge displacement is within the limit

All Rights Reserved 41

 Task 3 Temperature Profile Case 3d

All Rights Reserved 42

 Case 3d 240 inch x 80 inch Hotspot
Bulging Check

Bulge radial displacement: 0.115 in

Bulge radial displacement limit: 2.648 in
0.115 in < 2.648 in : Bulge displacement is within the limit

All Rights Reserved 43

 Level 2 and FEA Remaining Strength
Factor Results Summarized

Case 3a Case 3b Case 3c Case 3d

(18 in x 6 in) (24 in x 8 in) (48 in x 16 in ) (240 in x 80 in)

RSF by FEA 0.924 0.885 0.837 0.808

RSF by Level 2 0.861 0.843 0.810 0.810

Difference +0.0628 +0.0415 +0.0272 -0.0017

Variance 7.29% 4.93% 3.36% 0.21%

All Rights Reserved 44

 Bulging Checks Summarized

Case 3a Case 3b Case 3c Case 3d

(18 in x 6 in) (24 in x 8 in) (48 in x 16 in ) (240 in x 80 in)
Radial Bulging
0.179 0.195 0.171 0.115
Displacement, in
Radial Bulge
Displacement 0.199 0.265 0.530 2.648
Limit, in
Check Against
Pass Pass Pass Pass
Bulging

All Rights Reserved 45

 RSF Calculated - LEVEL 2 method
compared to FEA methods
1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
FEA Methods
0.4
Level 2
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
(18 in x 6 in) (24 in x 8 in) (48 in x 16 in ) (240 in x 80 in)
Case 3a Case 3b Case 3c Case 3d

All Rights Reserved 46

 Conclusions (TASK 3)

The results show a very good correlation, variance 0.21% -

7.29%. Proposed Level 2 method is more conservative than
the FEA method.
From the results in Task 2 (De-sulfurization Reactor) and Task
3 (Catalyst Transfer Line), it is shown that the bigger the
hotspot size, the more accurate level 2 method predicts.
Level 2 method assumes a hotspot is rectangular (a x b)
which inherently yields a conservative result when compared
to real life hotspot scenario via FEA method.

All Rights Reserved 47

All Rights Reserved 48