ICCBT2008

Failure Analysis on Deformed Superheater Tubes by Finite

Element Method
H. Othman, TNB Research Sdn. Bhn, MALAYSIA
J. Purbolaksono, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, MALAYSIA
B. Ahmad, TNB Research Sdn. Bhn, MALAYSIA

ABSTRACT

Significant deformations and the presence of cracks in the vicinity of welded joints have been
discovered at the superheater tubes of a Heat Recovery System Generator (HRSG) in a TNB
(Tenaga Nasional Berhad) power plant. This study performs the Finite Element (FE) analyses
in order to identify the possible root cause failure of the deformed superheater tubes using
software package of MSC PATRAN-NASTRAN. The locations of maximum stress induced by
the deformed tube are determined. The results of this study show the correlation between the
maximum stress and allowable restriction condition, and indicate good correlations with the
findings obtained during site inspection.

Keywords: Superheater tube, Deformation, Failure Analysis, Finite Element Method

*Correspondence Author: J. Purbolaksono, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, MALAYSIA

E-mail: judha@uniten.edu.my.

ICCBT 2008 - F - (26) – pp283-294

Failure Analysis on Deformed Superheater Tubes by Finite Element Method

1. INTRODUCTION

Superheater tubes as described by Daniel et al. [1] are surfaces for heat exchange where the
steam is heated to a higher value than saturation. As the steam produced must be at the highest
possible temperature, the superheater tubes bundle is placed at the beginning of the flue gas
path or at the lower part of the boiler. In regard to the failure problems in boiler tubes, many
researchers have reported their studies using finite element method and experimental analysis.

Jeong et al. [2] conducted finite element analysis for bursting failure prediction in bulge
forming under combined internal pressure and independent axial feeding. Finally, through a
series of bulge forming simulations with consideration of the welding, it is concluded that the
proposed method would be able to predict the bursting pressure and fracture initiation. Basu
[3] studied creep rupture lifetimes of damaged boiler tubes due to erosion and/ or corrosion
which cause local thinning. He models the elastic/ creep behavior of axisymmetric pressurized
component using finite volume program and conventional FE analysis. Karamanos et al. [4]
conducted an investigation on pressurized pipe elbows under bending loads using advanced
finite element analysis tools, supported by real-scale test data. This study is to investigate the
effect of the diameter-to-thickness ration on the ultimate capacity of 90 degree elbows,
focusing on failure mode and the maximum bending strength.

This study identifies the locations of maximum stress induced by the deformed tube and
presents the correlation between the maximum stress and allowable restriction condition. It
can be providing a better understanding of behavior of water tube boiler, especially HRSG at
elevated temperature.

2. MODELS OF THE PROBLEM

The model for FE analysis has been made to represent as close as the actual superheater tubes
circuit. Better understanding on the design of the under-studied component is important prior
to establishment of FE model.

2.1 Descriptions of the Component

The ASTM 213 T22 superheater tubes were installed at waste heat boiler with capacity of 55
MW. The studied components have been in operation for approximately 160,000 hours. The
components consist of 2 sections, i.e. bends tubes without fin and straight tubes with fin. The
bend tubes without fin section are placed in header compartment and act as medium to deliver
the superheated steam from straight tubes to header. At the same time, it also acts as a loop for
thermal expansion compensation. However, the straight tubes with fin section are located in
the flue gas path and supported by several tube sheets. In straight tube section, heat energy is
absorbed directly gas turbine exhaust at 540 ºC. The superheated steam at temperature 520 ºC
and pressure 67 bar is flowed through from 273 mm main steam pipe diameter to steam
turbine. The actual superheater tubes circuit is shown in Figure 1.

284 ICCBT 2008 - F - (26) – pp283-294

 H. Othman et. al.

Bend Tube Section Straight Tube Section Bend Tube Section

Inlet

90º
Connecting
Tube

1st wall 2nd wall

45º Outlet
Connecting
Tube

Figure 1. Drawing of superheater tube circuit (Courtesy of Paka TNB Power Station).

Visual inspection on site has found two (2) of connecting superheater tubes at outlet header
experiencing significant deformation and crack. The crack was circumferential and location
approximately 5 mm from welded joints. The condition of the failed tubes is shown in Figure
2.

Figure 2. Condition of failed tubes: deformed and cracked.

Visual inspection has also been carried out at second boiler wall (opposite bend tube section).
It was found that the fin of the identified tubes were restricted at second boiler wall. The
restriction condition on the fin of the identified tubes and tube displacement measurement are
shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectively.

ICCBT 2008 - F - (26) – pp283-294 285

Failure Analysis on Deformed Superheater Tubes by Finite Element Method

Figure 3. The restriction condition on the fin of identified tubes.

Figure 4. Tube displacement measurement shows 45 mm away from original position.

3. FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

The FE modeling was carried out using MSC Patran/ Nastran. Generation of 3D elements
from 3D model is based on the following information:

• Element shape: Tetrahedral

• Mesher : Tetmesh
• Topology : Tet10
• Global edge length : 0.01
• Total element generated : 96,237

286 ICCBT 2008 - F - (26) – pp283-294

 H. Othman et. al.

Element refinement has been made on potential cracked area especially at the welded joint
and its vicinity for better and accurate analysis. Figure 5 shows the 3D elements generated for
this FE analysis and elements refinement on potential cracked area.

Figure 5. Meshing and its refinement on potential cracked area.

3.1 Material Properties

The material specified is SA 213 (Grade T22) seamless ferritic low-alloy steel tube. Table 1
lists the chemical composition of the material.

Table 1. List of chemical composition for SA 213 T22 (Source: Bringas [5])
Chemical Composition
Carbon Manganese Phosphorus, Sulfur, Silicon Chromium Molybdenum
Max Max
0.05–0.15 0.30-0.60 0.025 0.025 0.50 1.90-2.60 0.87-1.13

Mechanical properties assumed for the analysis in this work are as follows:

1. At 520ºC: The mechanical properties of the material are derived from Mat/PRO 2.0 [6]
which is according to ASME Section 2 Part D.
• Young’s Modulus : 1.72 x 105 MPa
• Yield Strength : 183.0 MPa
• Tensile Strength : 378.9 MPa
• Thermal Expansion Coefficient : 14.46 x 10-6 mm/mm/ ºC
• Poisson Ratio : 0.3
• Density : 7,833.44 kg/m3

ICCBT 2008 - F - (26) – pp283-294 287

Failure Analysis on Deformed Superheater Tubes by Finite Element Method

2. At Room Temperature: The mechanical properties of the material are derived from
Mat/PRO 2.0 [6] which is according to ASME Section 2 Part D.
• Young’s Modulus : 2.11 x 105 MPa
• Yield Strength : 206.1 MPa
• Tensile Strength : 413.7 MPa
• Thermal Expansion Coefficient : 11.52 x 10-6 mm/mm/ ºC

3. At Room Temperature: The mechanical properties of the material are taken from tensile
test on as-received tube samples.
• Young’s Modulus : 6.36 x 104 MPa
• Yield Strength : 271.87 MPa
• Tensile Strength : 557.78 MPa

3.2 Boundary Conditions

The boundary conditions (see Figures 6 and 7) are set according to cases as follows:

1. Boundary condition for all cases: at the end of 45º connecting tube which supposed to be
attached to the outlet header was set fixed by applying constraints for all six degree of
freedom (translation and rotation), i.e. TX, TY, TZ, RX, RY and RZ. For the straight finned
tube, constraints were set at boiler walls and tube sheets at Y direction to act as sliding
support.

2. Boundary conditions for case by case: the purpose is to understand the behavior of the
tube deformation under different constraint by simulating seven (7) different cases. At
each case, the constraint is applied to the straight finned tube at certain point by fixing all
six degree of freedom (TX, TY, TZ, RX, RY and RZ).

2nd Wall 14836mm 1st Wall

Sliding Sliding

Fixed

Figure 6. No restriction on the straight finned tube.

288 ICCBT 2008 - F - (26) – pp283-294

 H. Othman et. al.

2nd Wall 14836mm 1st Wall

Sliding
Sliding X mm
Fixed

Fixed

Figure 7. Restriction on the straight finned tube at X m away from 1st boiler wall.

The applied loads for this FE analysis are temperature and pressure. The temperature load is
metal temperature, in which the straight finned and bend tube sections are under T = 520 ºC
and T = 519 ºC respectively, as shown in Figure 8. The pressure load is internal pressure of 67
bar applied in internal surface of superheater tube. Figure 9 shows the pressure load applied to
the finite element model. For the FE analysis, the loading conditions altogether with the
constraints as shown in Figures 6 and 7 are analyzed separately under operating internal
pressure of 67 bar and temperature at 520ºC.

520 ºC 519 ºC

2nd Wall 1st Wall

Figure 8. Temperature load applied in the finite element model.

Figure 9. Pressure load applied in the finite element model.

ICCBT 2008 - F - (26) – pp283-294 289

Failure Analysis on Deformed Superheater Tubes by Finite Element Method

3.3 Assumptions.

During performing FE analysis of deformation failure on superheater tubes, the following

assumptions are made as
- The tubes are subjected to constant uniform internal pressure P inside the tube and
constant temperature T throughout the boiler wall as studied by Daniel et al. [1] and
Basu [3].
- The various considerations involved with superheater tubes being exposed to
fluctuating internal pressure and temperature as well as effectiveness of finned tube
during operation is beyond the scope of this study.
- The metal tube temperature is calculated based on overall heat transfer coefficient, U
through composite resistance where the various resistance values used as specified by
Ganapathy [7], Robert and Harvey [8] and Lienhard [9].

4. NUMERICAL RESULTS

Several numerical results corresponding to the material properties and boundary conditions as
described in the previous section are presented and compared with the findings during
inspection on site.

Comparison of stress levels with regard to constraint distances is made based on three (3)
identified spots on the tube which has crack and experiences deformation. The identified spots
as indicated in Figure 10 are Node 191270 (crack area), Node 191397 (slant portion) and
Node 115914 (straight portion). The results for the FE analysis are shown in Figures 11, 12
and 13.

Node 115914

Node 191397

Node 191270

Figure 10. Stress distribution for the tube samples under temperature at 520 ºC in atmospheric
pressure and sub case: restriction at 2nd wall.

290 ICCBT 2008 - F - (26) – pp283-294

 H. Othman et. al.

Stress Vs Constraint Distance for Operating Temperature 520 C & Pressure 67 bars
(Material: Actual)

2.59E+09
2.50E+09

2.00E+09
Stress Value, Pa

1.50E+09

1.00E+09

7.35E+08

3.71E+08 5.58E+08
5.00E+08 3.71E+08
3.77E+08 3.77E+08

2.72E+08
5.58E+06 5.58E+06 5.58E+06 4.45E+06
5.36E+06
0.00E+00 5.58E+06 5.58E+06
5.36E+06 5.58E+06 4.45E+06
Free 1 st wall 1m 2m 3m 4m 2nd wall
Constraint Distance

Crack Area (Node 191270) Slant Portion (Node 191397) Straight Portion (Node 115914)
Sy (Yield Strength) St (Tensile Strength)

Figure 11. Stress versus constraint distance of the tube sample (as-received) subjected to
internal pressure of 67 bar at operating temperature, 520 ºC.

Stress Vs Constraint Distance for Operating Temperature 520 C & Pressure 67 bars
(Material: Standard)

8.00E+09
7.70E+09

7.00E+09

6.00E+09

5.00E+09
Stress Value, Pa

4.00E+09

2.96E+09
3.00E+09
2.12E+09 2.54E+09

1.69E+09
2.00E+09 1.78E+09

8.51E+08
8.49E+08
1.00E+09
4.27E+08 4.27E+08 4.27E+08
4.27E+08 4.28E+08 4.14E+08
2.06E+08
0.00E+00 5.57E+06 3.84E+06 3.84E+06
Free 1 st wall 1m 2m 3m 4m 2nd wall
Constraint Distance

Crack Area (Node 191270) Slant Portion (Node 191397) Straight Portion (Node 115914)
Sy (Yield Strength) St (Tensile Strength)

Figure 12. Stress versus constraint distance of the tube of standard material subjected to
internal pressure of 67 bar at operating temperature, 520ºC.

ICCBT 2008 - F - (26) – pp283-294 291

Failure Analysis on Deformed Superheater Tubes by Finite Element Method

Stress Vs Constraint Distance for Operating Temperature 520 C and Pressure 67 bars
(Material: Standard @ 520 C)

9.00E+09

8.00E+09
7.74E+09

7.00E+09

6.00E+09
Stress Value, Pa

5.00E+09

4.00E+09

3.00E+09 2.54E+09
2.12E+09
2.21E+09
2.00E+09
1.27E+09 1.66E+09
8.51E+08 8.51E+08
1.00E+09 4.28E+08
4.28E+08 4.28E+08
5.41E+06 3.79E+08
1.83E+08
4.28E+08 1.83E+08
0.00E+00 5.57E+06 5.57E+06
Free 1 st wall 1m 2m 3m 4m 2nd wall
Constraint Distance

Crack Area (Node 19120) Slant Portion (Node 191397) Straight Portion (Node 115914)
Sy (Yield Strength) St (Tensile Strength)

Figure 13. Stress versus constraint distance of the tube of standard material subjected to
internal pressure of 67 bar at operating temperature, 520 ºC (using mechanical
properties at 520 ºC)

As per FE analysis results shown in Figures 11, 12 and 13, the deformation of tube is similar
to the findings of the site visual inspection. The tube is experiencing deformation on two
sections: straight portion and slanting portion as a result from tube restriction on 2nd boiler
wall during thermal expansion. The crack location on tube sample is also similar to the
highest stress in the simulation. Figures 14 and 15 show the similarity of the deformation on
tube sample and simulation.

Crack

Figure 14. Deformation on tube sample.

292 ICCBT 2008 - F - (26) – pp283-294

 H. Othman et. al.

Highest
Stress

Figure 15. Stresses and deformed shape of the tube obtained from the simulation.
The results are indicating that temperature is the main factor of the deformation due to
restriction to the tube. For all FE analysis results which involve operating temperature of 520
ºC, there are stress levels on tube exceeding the tensile strength for three types of mechanical
properties when the constraint distance is more than 1m from 1st boiler wall, depending on the
case. Tube restriction has caused channeling the straight tube expansion to one direction at the
connecting tube. The undesired straight tube expansion produced bending stress to the weld
joint between the connecting tube and stub tube. Thus, constraint distance at 2nd boiler wall
gives the maximum expansion to the straight tube and is producing the highest stress level on
weld joint region for all cases. This undesired high stress can promote low cycle fatigue tube
failure. Furthermore, the existence of ‘groove feature’ at the region of weld joint between stub
and connecting tube has encouraged the failure of tube.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Finite Element (FE) analyses on deformation of superheater tubes were presented. It was
found that temperature was the main factor of the deformation due to restriction to the tube.
The locations of maximum stress induced by the deformed tube were determined. The results
showed the correlation between the maximum stress and allowable restriction condition. The
finite element results showed good correlation with the findings obtained during site
inspection. It may be used as the guidance for plant inspector in making their decision during
the inspection.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Malaysia for
financial support through project grant of IRPA 09-99-03-0033 EA001. Special gratitude
goes to Universiti Tenaga Nasional and TNB Research Sdn. Bhd Malaysia for permitting the
authors to utilize all the facilities in conducting this study.

ICCBT 2008 - F - (26) – pp283-294 293

Failure Analysis on Deformed Superheater Tubes by Finite Element Method

REFERENCES

[1] Daniel L. C. N., Jansen R. C. S, Ediberto B. T., Adriana C. R., Ibrahim C. A. Stress and
Integrity Analysis of Steam Superheater Tubes of a High Pressure Boiler, Materials
Research, Rio de Janeiro - RJ, Brazil, 2004
[2] Joeng K., Yong W.K, Beom S.K, Sang M.H, Finite Element Analysis for Bursting
Failure Prediction in Bulge Forming of a Seam Tube, Finite Elements in Analysis and
Design, Elsevier, 2003
[3] Basu A., The Finite Volume Analysis of Damaged Boiler Tubes, PhD Thesis, New South
Wales, 2002
[4] Karamanos S.A., Tsouvalas D., Gresnigt A.M., Ultimate Capacity of Pressurized 90
Degree Elbows Under Bending, Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessels, Heat
Exchangers and Piping Components Conference, PVP 2004.
nd
[5] Bringas J.E., Handbook of Comparative World Steel Standards ASTM DS67A, 2
Edition, pg. 217, 2002
[6] MAT/PRO 2.0 – Material Properties Software based on ASME 2007 Section II, Part D
Table 1A, 2007
[7] Ganapathy.V, Steam Plant Calculations Manual, 2nd Edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc, pg
234-263, 1994
[8] Robert D. Port, Harvey M. Herro, The NALCO Guide to Boiler Failure Analysis, Nalco
Chemical Company, McGraw-Hill Inc, pg. 6-10, 29-36, 47-52, 1991
[9] Lienhard J.H, A Heat Transfer Textbook, 3rd Edition, Phlogiston Press, Cambridge
Massachusetts, pg. 74-82, 2002

294 ICCBT 2008 - F - (26) – pp283-294