1220 L Street, Northwest

Washington, DC 20005-4070
202-682-8000

REQUIRESACTIONBY:MONDAY,DECEMBER17,2001
ReturntoBenitaGoreat:gore@api.org

Date: July17,2017
Document: Publication581
BallotNumber: 5810601
Submittedby: RicardoValbuena(ricardo.valbuena@dnv.com);JimRiley(jrri@chevrontexaco.com)

TO: APIRiskBasedInspectionUserGroup

PROPOSAL: THERMALFATIGUECRACKINGTECHNICALMODULE
(TypeanXintheappropriatebox.)
VOTE: NO

COMMENTS: Allcommentsmustbeaddressedinaccordancewithinstructionsonreverse.
*A negative ballot must be accompanied by comments (see Section III)

Hearl Mead 12-17-01

Name Date

Equilon / Shell Corrosion & Materials / Inspection

Company Committee/Task Group

281-544-8711 hemead@equilontech.com
Telephone E-mail

Returnto: BenitaGore,AmericanPetroleumInstitute,1220LStreet,NWWashington,DC20005
202-682-8148 (Phone), 202-962-4797 (Fax); gore@api.org(E-mail)

c: OGC,LegalReview

See next page for information on ballot approval and handling of comments
1220 L Street, Northwest
Washington, DC 20005-4070
202-682-8000
I. Ballot Approval

In accordance with Section 7.5.6 of APIs Standards Procedures as approved by the American National Standards
Institute on March 8, 1996, for a proposed ballot action to be considered approved, all comments must be considered
(see below) and the following conditions shall be satisfied:

a. At least 51 percent of the members who are eligible to vote shall have voted affirmative
b. At least two-thirds of the combined valid affirmative and negative votes shall be affirmative.

II. Resolution of Ballot Comments

In accordance with Section 7.5.6 of APIs Standards Procedures as approved by the American National Standards
Institute on March 8, 1996, all comments submitted with ballots must be considered and resolved before a ballot can
be approved by the committee. Resolved does not mean that the comment must be accepted, however all comments
must be considered and task force chairmen must provide API with a response to each comment in accordance with
the options listed below.

7.5.7. Task Force Chairmen working with committee members must consider and resolve all comments
pertaining to technical, safety or environmental assertions and assertions of ambiguity, inaccuracy, or omission.
Comments must be resolved in one of the following ways:

a. Comments with affirmative ballots are persuasive and editorial. The proposed editorial changes are
incorporated into the document.
b. Comments with affirmative ballots are persuasive and substantive. The proposed substantive changes are
reballoted for approval by the appropriate committee prior to incorporation into the document.
c. Comments with affirmative ballots are not technically persuasive. Such comments are not considered
further.
d. Comments with negative ballots are persuasive and substantive. The proposed substantive changes are
reballoted for approval by the appropriate committee prior to incorporation into the document.
e. Comments with negative ballots are withdrawn by the commenter after consultation with the chair or the
designated subgroup. The negative vote is changed to either an abstention or an affirmative vote as
specified by the voter.
f. Comments with negative ballots are found to be technically not persuasive or are found to be unrelated to
the item being balloted. Such comments are not considered further.

III. Handling of Negative Votes

All negative votes accompanied by comments will be considered, an attempt made to resolve the issue(s)and the
results provided to the consensus body to provide them with the opportunity to respond, reaffirm or change their
vote. Negative votes without comments will be recorded as abstentions in accordance with Section 7.5.5 of APIs
Standards Procedures and will not be considered further.

If a negative vote is changed, it must be done in writing. API is required to maintain written records of any
information relating to the change of an original vote. To afford all voters an opportunity to respond, reaffirm or
change their vote, all voters will be advised of the resolution of comments that formed the basis of negative ballots,
including an explanation of the resolution decision.

IV. Appeals

Any person having a material interest in an API standards action shall have the right to bring a timely appeal.
Administrative procedures for conflict resolution in the standards development process, including consideration of
negative ballots must be exhausted before lodging any appeal. Appeals shall be considered by the committee(s)
responsible for the issue with the right of further appeal to the API Management Committee. For additional
information see Section 7.7, API Standards Procedures.

Revised: 9/4/97
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix Q Thermal Fatigue Cracking
Ballot 581-06-01

APPENDIX Q THERMAL FATIGUE CRACKING TECHNICAL MODULE

PRIMARY REASON FOR VOTING NO IS THAT THERE IS NO INSPECTION
EFFECTIVENESS OR INSPECTION STRATEGY SECTION. THAT IS, NO INFLUENCE
ON THIS RISK ASSESSMENT ON INSPECTION.

Q.1 DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGE

Most low-cycle-fatigue problems in high temperature equipment involve thermal as well as
mechanical loading. Thermal fatigue is the gradual deterioration and eventual cracking of a
material caused by alternate heating and cooling during which free thermal expansion is partially
or fully constrained. Constraint of thermal expansion causes thermal stresses that may
eventually initiate and propagate fatigue cracks. Constraints may be external or internal. In
high-temperature components, especially in massive components, thermal gradients caused by
differential cooling or heating will stress the component. This occurs when thermal expansion
and contraction at A given location is constrained by adjacent material, which is either at a
different temperature or made of a different material.

In addition to the alternating stresses caused by the differential heating and cooling, temperature
dependent material properties may also increase the likelihood of fatigue. Many materials may
have a lowered fatigue resistance at high temperatures. Yielding and deformation caused by the
combination of high stress and high temperatures where yield stresses are low can also play a
part in the thermal fatigue.

In total, there are no simple unifying rules for identifying the combination of materials, varying
operating conditions, and component geometry that will result in thermal fatigue. A simple
subjective method is recommended for identifying equipment that is a likely candidate for this
damage mechanism. It requires analyst to examine the components that are subjected to repeated
high-temperature cycles during the life of the equipment, and to assess whether the geometry and
the severity of the operating conditions are likely to cause repeated cycles of high temperatures
and stresses.

The module is intended for equipment that are subjected to significant thermal cycling
throughOUT out their life. Some examples of this equipment are:

a. Thick walled vessels with high through wall temperature gradients.

b. Process vessels which are thermalLY cycled such as mole sieve vessels
c. Reformer furnace outlet headers
d. Equipment associated with furnaces that require routine decoking cycles.
e. Components downstream of furnaces such as transfer line exchangers
f. Equipment in process quench systems
g. Structural supports on piping and equipment that is thermally cycled
h. Catalytic reformer reactor inlet and outlet piping

Page 1 of 5
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix Q Thermal Fatigue Cracking
Ballot 581-06-01

Some vessels may be designed for cyclic thermal or pressure stresses. If this is the case, the
analyst should determine the design basis of the vessel and compare it TO actual operation.
Furthermore, the design basis can be an indication whether or not thermal fatigue is possible.

Q.2 BASIC DATA

The data listed in Table Q-11 are the minimum required to calculate the technical module
subfactor for thermal fatigue cracking.

Table Q-2 Basic Data Required for Analysis

Basic Data Comments

Constraints to thermal expansion?
Maximum metal temperature during
operation?
Change in metal temperature during
operation?
Rate of temperature change?
Constraints may be external or internal and may be caused by
geometrical constraints, such as sudden changes in thickness or high
temperature gradients caused by process conditions.
Equipment with a maximum metal temperature of 500F or greater is
considered at risk for thermal fatigue.
Equipment with temperature differences (Tmax-Tmin) greater than 200F
are considered at risk for thermal fatigue.
Very gradual temperature variations are ignored.

Number of thermal cycles?
Rate of cycling?
Possible location for failures?
Number of thermal cycles since last
inspected?
This is the number of thermal cycles that the equipment will have been
subjected to at the time of the assessment.
Fatigue is not considered for equipment that is cycled less than twice per
year.
These could include: external thermal expansion restrictions; dissimilar
metal welds; thick walls; thickness changes; possible points where
process could impinge metal that is significantly cooler, warmer than the
process.
Determined by the date of the last inspection for cracking.

Q.2 DETERMINATION OF TECHNICAL MODULE SUBFACTOR

Q.2.1 Technical Module Screening Questions

Figure 1 shows the basic steps in the determination of the TMSF. The steps are as follows:

1. Is the equipment subject to temperatures above 500F during its operating cycle? If any
portion of the operating cycle exceeds 500F, (NEED TO SHOW REFERENCE TO THIS
500F) thermal fatigue is possible. This limit on temperature applies to all phases of normal
operation. Thermally induced stresses could result in fatigue and deterioration at lower
temperatures. However, thermal fatigue is more prevalent in equipment that experiences high

Page 2 of 5
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix Q Thermal Fatigue Cracking
Ballot 581-06-01

temperatures during some portion of its operating cycle, where changing material properties
have the potential to contribute to deterioration. Above 500F, material properties of many
materials such as yield and tensile strength become more sensitive to temperature.

2. Is the rate of temperature change greater than 200F per day (ISNT THIS SUPPOSED TO
BE 200F PER HOUR??), during some portion of the cycle? Slowly varying temperatures
have a smaller potential to induce thermal gradients, and thermal stresses. For example, a
vessel with a run cycle that includes long constant temperature phases would be included, if
the cycle includes operating phases that cause the vessel to be heated or cooled at a rate faster
than 200F/hour.

3. Is the amplitude of the thermal cycle (Tmax Tmin) more than 2100F RECOMMEND
CHANGING THIS TO 100F, WHICH FOR A LOW ALLOY MATERIAL WOULD BE A
STRESS OF ABOUT 22KSI ? Thermal fatigue is not considered in items WHERE THE
AMPLITUDE OF THE THERMAL CYCLE IS with thermal cycles less than 2100F.

4. Are there any constraints to thermal expansion? If there are no constraints or restrictions to
thermal expansion then the likelihood of thermal fatigue is very low. Constraints can be the
result of temperature differences or the result of the geometric design of the component. A
constraint caused by thermal gradients includes heating or cooling across a thick walled
component, rapid cooling or heating of a nozzle relative to the vessel. Geometrical or
physical constraints include supports, changes in thickness, or bimetallic welds connecting
components with different coefficients of expansion.

5. Does the item undergo two or more temperature cycles per year? If so, thermal fatigue is
considered possible.

Q.2.2 Assessment of Thermally Induced Stresses

For equipment that meets all of the screening criteria, the analyst is required to determine if the
item has either a high, medium, or low possibility of thermally induced stresses. This assessment
is done in two parts:

a. Is there a high probability of large temperature gradients? (Temperature gradient = Low or

High) High temperature gradients can result from rapid or uneven cooling or heating of a
vessel or component. This could be caused by instabilities in the process during cycles, or
the uneven application of insulation, for example at nozzles or other structural
discontinuities. Rapid temperature changes in the process will cool thinner sections more
quickly than thicker sections. Because heat transfer is most effective at locations with high
fluid velocities, variations in fluid velocity or turbulence may contribute to higher
temperature gradients.

b. Does the geometry constrain differential expansion and contraction? (Geometrical constraint
= Low or High) Geometric constraint on differential thermal expansion increases the

Page 3 of 5
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix Q Thermal Fatigue Cracking
Ballot 581-06-01

probability of stress concentrations. For example, sudden changes in thickness or other

structural discontinuities such as nozzle reinforcement pads, skirts or other vessel supports or
stiffeners can constrain differential expansion. Large through-thickness bending stresses may
result near locations where there are sudden changes in the stiffness of the component.

Based on the analysts subjective assessment of these two questions, and the rules given in Table
Q-32 one of the three columns in the TMSF table is selected.

THERE NEEDS TO BE AN INSPECTION EFFECTIVENESS SECTION AND INFLUENCE

OF THE INSPECTION STRATEGY ON THE RISK ASSESSMENT.

Page 4 of 5
API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix Q Thermal Fatigue Cracking
Ballot 581-06-01

Table Q-4 Estimation of the Technical Module Subfactor

for Thermal Fatigue Cracking

Use this table in the following way: TMSF

1. Determine the life parameter T from T 1 2 3
the equation: 0.0 1 10 100
T t tinsp tinsp 0.1 2 18 175
where t = age in the number of thermal- 0.2 3 30 290
cycles of the component, and tinsp is the 0.3 5 48 457
number of cycles experienced by the 0.4 8 75 686
component when it was last inspected. If 0.5 11 112 984
the component has never been inspected
SET T = 14.
0.6 17 164 1348
THIS NEEDS A FULL EXAMPLE IN
THE TEXT
2. Select column to BE used in the 0.7 24 234 1761
TMSF table (right) based on the answers 0.8 34 325 2194
to the two questions: 0.9 47 441 2605
Geometric Temperature gradient 1.0 63 586 2953
constraint Low High 1.5 236 1759 3500
Low 1 2 2.0 658 3065 3500
High 2 3 2.5 1430 3482 3500
3.0 2414 3500 3500
3. Adjust for column for one of the 3.5 3174 3500 3500
following factors: 4.0 3460 3500 3500
If cracking was detected in the most
recent inspection, use column 3.
If more than five inspections and ten
years of service have been
completed with no failures, subtract
one from the column number if the
column number is 1 set TMSF to 1.

Page 5 of 5
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix Q Thermal Fatigue Cracking
Ballot 581-06-01

Start

No Maximum
Tmax 500F temperature

Yes

No Temperature
T 200F
range

Yes

No Heating and
dT/dt cooling rates
200F/day

Yes

Frequency of
No Does it cycle more thermal cycles
frequently than and number of
once per 6 thermal cycles
months?

Yes

Assessment of
No Is thermal design and
expansion operating
constrained? characteristics

Yes

Assessment of
constraints, thermal
No significant gradients
damage expected Determine TMSF Number of cycles
from thermal using Table 2 Number of cycles
fatigue since last inspection

Figure 2 Determination of the Technical Module Subfactor for Thermal Fatigue Cracking

Page 6 of 5