Technical Module Work Group July 17, 2017

BRD Appendix V Revision 6 Appendix V, Page 1

TECHNICAL MODULE #8

Creep Cracking

TECHNICAL MODULE #8 CREEP CRACKING

8.1 Description of Damage
One of the most critical factors determining the integrity of high-temperature components
is their resistance to creep damage. At high temperatures and under constant loads, metal
components slowly and continuously deform. After a period of exposure to elevated
temperatures and stress (well below the materials yield strength) these deformations may
eventually lead to failure. The time dependent, thermally assisted deformation of stressed
components is known as creep. While the rate of creep deformation is a function of both
the load and temperature; however, deformations rates are usually most sensitive to the
temperature. Creep cracking typically occurs where high metal temperatures and stress
concentrations occur together, such as at tee-joints or in weld defects in high-temperature
process lines. Creep cracking, once initiated, progresses rapidly.

Creep deformations can cause unacceptable dimensional changes and distortions as well as
fracture of the component. Depending on the component, the failure may be limited by
deformation or fracture. The purpose of this technical module is to provide guidelines for
calculating damage factors for creep to be used in an RBI approach.

8.2 Basic Data

The data listed in Table 1 are the minimum required to calculate the Technical Module
Subfactor for Creep Cracking.

Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. Houston, Texas

Technical Module Work Group July 17, 2017
BRD Appendix V Revision 6 Appendix V, Page 2

TECHNICAL MODULE #8

Creep Cracking

Table 1 Basic Data Required for Analysis

Basic Data Comments
Grade and specification of base See screening question in section 8.4, Step 1.
metals in equipment?
Metal temperature during operation? See screening question in section 8.4, Step 1.

Life fraction consumed (LF) to date.
Stress Raisers Present?
Dissimilar Metal Welds Present?
Are there any past creep failures?
(Y/N)
If so, what was the age of the
component when it failed?
Location of Failures?
Years since last inspected?
Life fraction consumed (LF) is the ratio of the age of the component to
its estimated minimum creep life of the component. The life fraction is
calculated or estimated for different conditions:
LF is the estimate of life fraction based on current knowledge
LFA is the life fraction adjusted for stress raisers
LFID is the life fraction consumed at the date of the next planned
inspection.
LFIA is the life fraction consumed adjusting for the result of a future
inspection.
A stress raiser is any significant change in cross sectional thickness,
and may include branches, tees, other fitting, or supports. Because
stress raisers may result from weld defects that may not be visible, it
should be assumed that stress raisers are present unless extraordinary
means are taken to avoid them.
Differences in temperature dependency of elastic properties, strength,
and thermal expansion could act as stress raisers at the joint, such as
welds between ferritic and austenitic steels.
Indicate if past failures have occurred.
Past failures are used as an indicator of probable component life.
Determine the location of the occurrence of failure:
Stress Raisers
Dissimilar Metal Welds
Dissimilar Metal Welds and Stress Raisers
No Dissimilar Metal Welds or Stress Raisers
Determined by the date of the last inspection for creep cracking.

What type of inspection or condition Inspection / condition assessment activities include:

assessment was performed? Field Metallography and Replication (FMR)
Stress analysis and/or temperature survey used to estimate
remaining life
Sample removal for metallographic examination or physical testing

8.3 Basis of Technical Module Subfactors

Figure 1 shows several time-depth trajectories for creep cracks in a high temperature alloy
for metal temperatures that range over a 50C interval. The results in Figure 1 were
obtained using a typical method for high-temperature creep cracking (C*). These and
similar results show that for the majority of time, that creep cracking damage occurs
slowly, until it reaches some critical depth where rapid crack growth initiates and failure

Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. Houston, Texas

Technical Module Work Group July 17, 2017
BRD Appendix V Revision 6 Appendix V, Page 3

TECHNICAL MODULE #8

Creep Cracking

occurs. The period of time that cracks in a component are sub-critical depend on several
factors including:
Temperature. For example, in Figure 1 an increase of about 20F or 12C halves the
life, for this alloy. The life of high temperature components becomes nearly infinite
at temperatures below the threshold limit (Table 2), where even at high stresses near
the crack tip, creep damage is slow and crack growth arrests.
Stress. Stresses are needed to initiate cracks and to drive them. Typical locations for
creep damage are near major structural discontinues such as pipe tee-joints, nozzles,
or welds. The sudden change in material properties at welds between dissimilar
metals can also act as a stress raiser that is sometimes further complicated by an
increased uncertainty of the components mechanical properties at the weld.
Creep life models seem to predict that the initiation period is the critical factor in the
probability of the failure. The sensitivity of creep-life models to stress, temperature and
material properties make accurate prediction of these initiation times very uncertain. For
these two reasons, the following failure likelihood model uses a quasi-statistical method
applied to past experience on particular equipment or similar equipment.

1.2"

1.0"
0.8"
600C
0.6" 612C
a

625C
0.4"
650C
0.2"
0.0"
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
t (hrs)

Figure 1. Typical Creep Crack Growth Chart Showing Rapid Failure

This module models the failure likelihood as increasing over the time, where the increase
rate is a function of the following factors:
Age of the component
Estimated minimum lifetime of component at nominal stress and operating
temperature

Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. Houston, Texas

Technical Module Work Group July 17, 2017
BRD Appendix V Revision 6 Appendix V, Page 4

TECHNICAL MODULE #8

Creep Cracking

Welds between dissimilar metals

Geometric stress raisers
Past experience, including past creep failures
The parameter used to quantify the condition of a component or equipment item is its life
fraction consumed, LF. Qualitatively, it was assessed that the probability of failure for
equipment items that had consumed less than 25% of its nominal creep life would not be
significantly affected by this failure mechanism. Where the items age ranges between
25% and 80% of its nominal creep life the probability of failure should be significantly
higher than for a industrial average or generic probability. Items with a LF>80% should
be carefully assessed to determine remaining life.

8.4 Determination of Technical Module Subfactor

The following assessment pertains to all components in high temperature service except
for heater tubes. If the component is a heater tube, it should be assessed using the furnace
module (TM #4). The technical module subfactor is determined in the following steps.

1. Initial screening question. Table 3 lists threshold temperatures for creep damage.
For any given material, if the metal temperature is above the given value, then creep
and creep cracking should be considered.
Table 3 Threshold temperatures for creep cracking
Material Threshold Material Threshold
temperature temperature
Carbon Steel 750 F 5Cr-1/2Mo 800 F
C-1/2 Mo 800 F 9Cr-1Mo 900 F
1 1/4Cr-1/2Mo 800 F SS304H 1050 F
2 1/4Cr-1Mo 800 F SS347H 1050 F
2. Determine the life fraction consumed, LF, using one the following methods,
depending on the information given. The methods are listed in order of decreasing
conservatism and increasing complexity. The most conservative least analytical
methods are listed first, the most complex and least conservative are listed last.
A. If no information is available assume that the minimum component life is
100,000 hours (approximately 12 years). Here, LF is simply the ratio of the age
of the component to 12 years. One hundred thousand hours is the typical
design life of components. While this assumption should result in conservative
results in the majority of cases, the analyst should be aware that that universally
adopting a 100,000 hour creep life for a range of equipment greatly increases
the uncertainty and could in some cases result in a non-conservative result.
B. If only the design stress and temperature are known, then estimate the
components life using the creep properties given in API 530 or in Appendix F,
API RP 579. With the design stress and temperature, calculate the LMP (for

Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. Houston, Texas

Technical Module Work Group July 17, 2017
BRD Appendix V Revision 6 Appendix V, Page 5

TECHNICAL MODULE #8

Creep Cracking

API 530) or 0 and (for API 579). Use these material parameters, to
estimate minimum creep life, L. For example:
1000 LMP
log10 L C
T 460
1
L
0

Then calculate the life fraction, LF as A/L where A is the age of the component.
C. If the actual or nominal stress and the representative, historical operating
temperature are known, use these values to estimate the components life using
the creep properties given in API 530 or in Appendix F, API 579. First,
estimate or calculate the membrane stress in the case of shells or heads, or
average cross-sectional stress in the case of hangers and supports. With this
stress and operating temperature, calculate the LMP (for API 530) or 0 and
(for API 579). Use these material parameters, to estimate minimum creep life,
L. For example, the formula tabulated above could be used with stresses and
temperatures determined from the historical record. Then calculate the life
fraction, LF as A/L where A is the age of the component.
D. If in the past the component has failed and been replaced in kind or repaired,
then assume the expected life, L, is the age of the component when it failed. In
this case, the life fraction, LF is the ratio of the age of the current component to
the observed life A/L.
If the component has been assessed based on an inspection, physical testing, and a detailed
engineering analysis with measured historical operating data, the result of this assessment
should be used to determine the consumed life fraction. Only assessments made within the
five-year period preceding the date of the LF calculation was made should be used. If it
has been more than five years since the last inspection or assessment, a detailed review of
the assumptions used and the results obtained from the assessment should be performed.
No remaining life estimate obtained prior to any significant change in operating conditions
should be used without a review of the results, assumptions and methods used to obtain it.
A new LF calculation is to be performed after any significant change in the operation (e.g.,
stress, temperature, corrosion rates, etc.). The LF calculation made on the basis of an
inspection or sample removal is taken at face value, regardless of the methods employed
to arrive at the answer. However, for inspection planning purposes, two general
assessment types are identified:

E. A surface inspection (field metallography and replication, FMR, and magnetic

particle, MP) combined with a remaining life assessment, where available
historical temperature records and calculated stresses are used to determine
the remaining life and the LF.

Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. Houston, Texas

Technical Module Work Group July 17, 2017
BRD Appendix V Revision 6 Appendix V, Page 6

TECHNICAL MODULE #8

Creep Cracking

F.Sample removal and physical testing either creep rupture or creep strain
testing (-testing) are combined with historical temperatures and calculated
stresses to determine the LF.
3. Determine if any of the following conditions apply:
Welds joining dissimilar materials (e.g., ferritic to austenitic welds).
Radical changes in stiffness or component details that have sharp transitions,
tight radii, notches or grooves.
If so, adjust the estimated life fraction, LFA according to Table 4.
If not, set the adjusted life fraction to the estimated life fraction (LFA = LF) go to
Step 4.
Table 5. Adjustment to life fraction based on calculation method
Method of calculating LF Adjusted LF, LFA
Default lifetime of 100,000 hours (Method A) 2.5LF
Calculated based on design stress and temperature (Method B) 2.5LF
Calculated based on a calculated average component stress and 1.5LF
operating temperature (Method C)
Calculated based on the observed life of the component, where 1.25LF
failure occurred as a stressed point (Method D)
Calculated based on the combination of detailed stress analysis, 1LF
mechanical testing. (Method F)
Calculated based on the combination of detailed stress analysis or - If calculated LF 0.8
other advanced technique. BUT WITH NO SAMPLE REMOVAL then use 1LF
(Method E) - If calculated LF > 0.8
then use LF = 1

4. Table 6 relates the adjusted life fraction, LFA and the technical module subfactor,
TMSF. The following table is a subjective assessment of the failure probability
given the components estimated LFA. It was determined by assuming that a
component is most likely to fail when its estimated adjusted life fraction, LFA is 1 and
that the probability of failure is 3% for a component with an estimated adjusted life
fraction, LFA of less than 0.5. These probabilities levels were set based on
engineering judgement and expert opinion. It was felt that a component is most
likely to fail when it reaches its estimated life and that there is a very small probability
(3% or less) that a component fails before it reaches one half of its estimated life. For
simplicity, a function similar in form to Weibull distribution was used to develop the
tabulated TMSFs.

Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. Houston, Texas

Technical Module Work Group July 17, 2017
BRD Appendix V Revision 6 Appendix V, Page 7

TECHNICAL MODULE #8

Creep Cracking

Table 7. TMSF as a function of the adjusted life fraction

consumed (LFA) or the life fraction adjusted for inspection
(LFIA)
LFA LFA
TMSF TMSF
LFIA LFIA
0.05 1 0.55 295
0.10 1 0.60 431
0.15 1 0.65 609
0.20 3 0.70 833
0.25 9 0.75 1109
0.30 20 0.80 1438
0.35 39 0.85 1818
0.40 72 0.90 2246
0.45 121 0.95 2713
0.50 193 1.00 3205

8.5 Inspection planning, inspection effectiveness

When future inspections are being planned, the effect on the TMSF must be determined in
order to assess, whether the planned inspection or remaining life assessment has the
potential to reduce the risk enough to make the planned inspection economical. In step 3,
past inspections and remaining life assessments results are used to set the LF used to enter
Table 8. However, because the value of the LF that results from a future inspection and/or
assessment is not available until it is performed, Table 9 contains recommended values that
can be used for inspection and assessment planning purposes.

The method described below depends on the life fraction at the time when the inspection is
planned, LFID. Because an inspection performed early in the life of a component is
unlikely to observe any damage, the calculation of the future TMSF used for planning,
ignores any inspection planned before 15% of the creep life has been consumed. To
conservatively account for possible replacement of aging components, the default values
for LFID resulting from a late in life inspection assume that the planned inspection does not
result in a significant improvement in the estimated remaining life.

The values determined from the Table 10 can be used in Table 11, in the following way:

Calculate the adjusted life fraction at the planned inspection date, LFID (Steps 1 to 4).
LFID is calculated using the age of the component at time of the proposed inspection
or assessment, while ignoring any expected future inspection result. The results
from past inspection(s) should be considered. For example, a 15-year old item is
considered for an inspection five years into the future. On the inspection date, the
equipment will be 20 years old. Steps 1 4 result in an estimated life, L = 30 years.
At the time of inspection the LFID = 20/30 = 0.67.
Enter Table 12 with LFID to determine the value of the inspection adjusted life
fraction LFIA to be used in Table 13, which gives the TMSF. There are two possible

Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. Houston, Texas

Technical Module Work Group July 17, 2017
BRD Appendix V Revision 6 Appendix V, Page 8

TECHNICAL MODULE #8

Creep Cracking

values: 1) the recommended default LFIA; or 2) the value of LF, which the analyst
believes will result from the combination of the inspection and/or further assessment.
Table 14. Adjustments to be made for inspections.
Pre- FMR / MPI and Sample removal and
assessment detailed remaining detailed remaining
estimate of life life assessment life assessment
fraction, LFID (Method E) (Method F)
0.25 0.80 LFIA = Estimated LF LFIA = Estimated LF
OR OR
Max(2LFID/3, 0.25)* Max(LFID/2, 0.15)*
0.80 1.00 LFIA = 0.75 LFIA = 0.60

Notes:
Estimated LF = the analysts best estimate (guess) for the life fraction
that will be calculated, if the proposed inspection/assessment is
performed.
Improving the calculation of LF and LFA on the bases of Methods B,
C, and D can be implemented without any need to inspect.
* designates default value.

Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. Houston, Texas

Technical Module Work Group July 17, 2017
BRD Appendix V Revision 6 Appendix V, Page 9

TECHNICAL MODULE #8

Creep Cracking

START

Screening questions on
Not in creep done
material grade and range
temperature

Estimate LF using
methods A-E

Adjust LF
Are stress Yes using Table
raisers present ? TM8.3

No

Calculate TMSF using

Table TM8.4

Is action Yes Do it
required
immediately

No

Start
inspection/assessment
planning

Figure 2. Flow diagram of assessment

Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. Houston, Texas

Technical Module Work Group July 17, 2017
BRD Appendix V Revision 6 Appendix V, Page 10

TECHNICAL MODULE #8

Creep Cracking

START

Calculate LF at inspection date,

denote this as LFID

Yes No inspection /
Is LFID < 0.25? assessment type is
effective

No

Improve estimate based on

available information

Yes
Can estimate of LFID be
improved by using
Methods A, B, C, or D?

No

Estimate improvement to LF based on Methods E

or F inspection Table TM8.5

Change proposed
inspection / assessment
type or date Estimate TMSF for inspection date using Table
OR TM8.4
Plan repair/replacement

Does inspection modified

No TMSF or corresponding
risk meet inspection
criteria?

Yes

Done

Figure 3. Flow diagram of inspection planning

Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. Houston, Texas