Thermal Shock Cracking: Design

and Assessment Guidelines

John W. H. Price
Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Monash University,
Clayton, Vic, 3800, Australia
e-mail: john.price@eng.monash.edu.au
Repeated thermal shock cracking is common in the operation of pressure equipment
where water and steam are present. Surprisingly, it is not fully covered in the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel code nor in fitness-for-purpose recommended practice such as
API 579. An example of thermal shock stresses occurs when hot surfaces are exposed to
splashing of cold water. This eventually may lead to crack nucleation and crack growth.
However, not all thermal shock cracks lead to failures (such as rupture, leak, or, in more
brittle material, fragmentation), indeed the most frequent situation is that the cracking
arrests at a depth of a few millimeters. This paper presents a unique experimental study
and analysis of the information being gained from this study in terms of design guidelines
and crack growth mechanisms. In the experiments, cracks are initiated and then grown in
low carbon steel specimens exposed to repeated thermal shock. The test-rigs achieve
large thermal shocks through the repeated water quenching of heated flat plate speci-
mens. The effect of steady state loads on the growth and environmental effects due to the
aqueous nature of the testing environment are found to be major contributors to the crack
growth kinetics. The most important findings are that the conditions leading to both the
initiation and the arrest of cracks can be identified and that the depth of a starter notch
contributes little to the crack propagation. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.2389029兴

Keywords: thermal shock, cracking, initiation, growth, arrest, design, fitness for purpose

Introduction at Monash University. The experimental work is currently limited

Down shocks often occur when low temperature fluid strikes an
already hot surface. Another common situation is where there is
rapid depressurization such as can be caused by sudden leaks or
valve operations. Depressurization causing thermal shock also oc-
curs when high pressure water is vented through orifices.
Down shocks induce a very high skin tension stress on the
component, which decreases rapidly through the thickness of the
component, as shown in Fig. 1. In normal operation there is usu-
ally also a primary mechanical load due to pressure and dead
weight loading, which is applied to the component. An important
recent failure is reported by Alexander et al. 关1兴.
In this work, stresses created as a result of thermal shock are
distinguished from stresses that occur during uniform thermal ex-
pansion. Thermal shock stresses decay rapidly both in time and
across the section as shown in Fig. 1, whereas thermal expansion
stresses are more constant with time and across the section. Ther-
mal expansion stresses are in effect similar to cycling mechanical
stresses.
Thermal shock stresses can be regarded as Classification F,
Peak stresses 共“Certain thermal stresses which may cause fatigue
but not distortion of the vessel shape”兲 in Fig. 4-130.1 of ASME
VIII Division 2 关2兴. The code, however, gives no information as to
how to calculate the stresses.
Thermal shock driven cracking is one of the most common
cracking phenomena observed in many types of pressure equip-
ment such as those in electricity generating boilers, nuclear plant,
steam turbine auxiliary plant, and other situations 关3–5兴. Thermal
shock cracking tends to start at geometrical discontinuities as
shown in Fig. 2.
This paper is based on experimental and theoretical work done
Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 9,
2005; final manuscript received March 1, 2006. Review conducted by Rudolph J.
Scavuzzo. Paper presented at the 2005 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Confer-
ence 共PVP2005兲, July 17–21, 2005, Denver, Colorado, USA.
to carbon steel operating at temperatures below the creep range in
a water/steam environment.
Experimental Work
Two thermal fatigue test rigs have been built at Monash for the
investigation of crack initiation and growth due to repeated ther-
mal shock loading. The experimental work that is being conducted
is unique in several ways and uses full-scale test specimens that
mimic plant conditions 关6兴. There have been other experimental
tests of the thermal cracking phenomena but for various reasons
they have not simulated the conditions in the operating plant. This
has produced a number of limitations to the results from such
testing, in particular they have not detected the importance of
mechanical loading and environment on the growth rate of cracks
关7,8兴.
The tests at Monash take several months to complete as the
specimens are put through thousands of cycles that take
15– 20 min each. The specimens are alternatively heated in a con-
vection furnace and then cooled by sprays of cold water. Approxi-
mately one-dimensional conditions exist at any one crack because
of the use of attached thermal masses as shown in Fig. 3. The
growth of the cracks is recorded every hundred or so cycles by
removing the specimen from the furnace and examining it under a
microscope.
Recent experimental work at Monash has included a new vari-
ety of starting notch sizes and a horizontal test arrangement as
shown in Fig. 3. The horizontal arrangement permits a larger
number of higher temperature tests to be conducted than does the
vertical furnace arrangement. The atmosphere in the vertical fur-
nace has some convection movement of heat, which means that
higher parts of the specimen are hotter than lower parts of the
specimen. This means only the top is subjected to the maximum
thermal shock. The horizontal furnace has some different features;
in particular, liquid water is present in the crack for longer after
the shock, which may affect corrosion rates.
In association with this experimental work there are a number
of thermal shock cracks in power plants that have been observed
on an occasional basis over a number of years. These have been
used to confirm the work.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright © 2007 by ASME FEBRUARY 2007, Vol. 129 / 125

Downloaded 01 Feb 2009 to 130.194.10.86. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 mined using the techniques of ASME Section XI and are shown in
Fig. 4. Note that the combined stress intensities are modified by
plastic zone correction factors.
The key thing to note about Fig. 4 is that while the stress
intensity factor 共“SIF”兲 due to mechanical loads increases with
distance from quenched face, d, the SIF due to the thermal shock
cracking increases then decreases as d increases. The total SIF
thus peaks in the example given at about 2.5 mm and then falls.
The total SIF falls below 50 MPa· m1/2 at about 7 mm. This turns
out to be about the level that indicates a dramatic loss of crack
growth driver.

Results
Many cracks have now been grown on both the horizontal and
vertical rigs and have covered a wide range of conditions. Some
of the factors that have been varied include:
Fig. 1 Distribution of thermal shock and mechanical stress • Peak temperature 共T ° C兲. Temperatures from 240° C to
across a section.
400° C have been used.
• Constant stress applied 共P MPa兲. This is generally either 0
or 90 MPa stress.
The stress intensity factor produced by thermal shock stresses is • Quench time 共Q s兲. This is the time for which cold water is
dependent not only on the stresses indicated in Fig. 1, but also on sprayed on the specimen. From theoretical work, peak stress
the depth of the crack 共including any notch兲. This has been deter- at 3.5 mm was achieved after 7 s.

Fig. 2 „a… Cracking from external corners such as at penetrations. „b… Cracking at internal cor-
ners. „c… Examples of geometrical details affecting thermal shock cracking from power stations.
Left at the intersection of two drain lines. Right in an economizer inlet header.

126 / Vol. 129, FEBRUARY 2007 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 01 Feb 2009 to 130.194.10.86. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Fig. 3 Experiment design. Left, vertical furnace; right horizontal furnace. Full details of the experiment design are given in
Ref. †6‡

• Starter notch, ao 共mm兲. Starter notches from 1 to 3.5 mm

have been tested and cracks grown from all such notches.

A selection of the main results in the form of crack depth, a,

versus crack growth rate is given for the two furnaces in Figs. 5
and 6. Figure 7 shows an enlarged view of a thermal shock crack.

Discussion
General Observations. The main observations from this work
are as follows:
• All of the cracks that have been grown have arrested.
Fig. 4 Maximum stress intensity factor profiles during 7 s • Cracks on specimens with primary loadings have at first
shock from 370° C, with and without 90 MPa primary load

Fig. 5 Crack growth rate versus crack length „includes notch depth… for a number of cracks in the vertical
furnace experiments. T = maximum cycle temperature „°C…, P = primary mechanical load „MPa…, Q = quenching
time „time of water application… in seconds. Starting notch depth, ao, is 3.5 mm for all cases. The meaning of
“Best fit” and “Conservative” lines are described in relation to Eq. „3….

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 2007, Vol. 129 / 127

Downloaded 01 Feb 2009 to 130.194.10.86. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Fig. 6 Data generated during horizontal rig experiments. Crack growth rate ver-
sus crack length for various notch depths, ao.
accelerated in growth rate, reached a plateau of growth, rate
and then arrested.
• Cracks growing without primary loading have tended to
grow at slower rates and arrest earlier.
• Most cracks have arrested in less than 3 mm growth. A few
cracks growing from the theoretically most severe notch
tested 共ao = 3.5 mm兲 have grown further to a maximum of
6.2 mm.
Both the physical appearance of the cracks and the growth rate
data suggest there are some simple major features of the crack
growth.
1. Growth in the early stages up to about 1 mm exhibits the
features of plastic tearing—raised and less corroded surfaces
2. Growth with a large amount of corrosion.
3. Growth region where the corrosion is limited and there is
sometimes branching of the crack 共Paris and arresting兲.
Fig. 7 A thermal shock crack at 20 times magnification from
„a… the side, and „b… fracture surface. The various growth re-
gimes are indicated 90 MPa loaded specimen with top tempera-
ture of 400° C.
128 / Vol. 129, FEBRUARY 2007
Downloaded 01 Feb 2009 to 130.194.10.86. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Growth Stages of the Cracks. To simplify the picture of what
is being observed, consider Fig. 8. This figure shows two sets of
data presented for two specimens from the vertical furnace which
differ only in that one has a mechanical stress of P = 90 MPa
applied.
Environmental effects can be seen by the knee in the fatigue
growth curve first presented by Austen and Walker 关9兴 and also
found in BS 7910 关10兴. Figure 9 presents some of our data on this
curve. Data with higher primary stresses apparently have an in-
creased environmental effect.
Initiation of Thermal Shock Cracking
A Design Guideline. The circumstances that can lead to ther-
mal shock cracking should clearly be avoided during design. In
addition, existing plants should be assessed for the possible pres-
ence of thermal shock cracking. It is thus important to have a
guideline for determining the conditions necessary for the preven-
tion of thermal shock cracking. There is currently no clear guide-
line in the standards examined by the author.
For the initiation of thermal shock cracking, the following key
factors are required:
Fig. 8 Two cases differing only in applied mechanical loading.
The applied 90 MPa loading shows a higher level of HSF
growth and an area of corrosion dominated growth. A picture of
this crack is shown in Fig. 7. Data drawn from Fig. 5, 7 s
quench.
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 9 Smoothed experimental crack growth data plotted
against a Gabetta et al. †11‡ model prediction, allowing for the
effects of environment and primary load. Experimental data for
dissolved oxygen „“DO”… =8 ppm plotted.
a. a geometrical feature 共stress concentration兲 and
b. a number of thermal shock cycles of sufficient
magnitude.
Crack initiation can be complex, so the proposed guidelines
involve a three-level approach as is seen in other codes such as BS
7910. Each of the levels from 1 to 3 will be intended to have a
decreasing amount of conservatism. The choice of level to be used
in an analysis depends upon the input data available and the con-
servatism required. The three levels are summarized below.
Level 1 is a simplified go/no-go type analysis requiring the
absolute minimum of input data. This approach is the most con-
servative in its results as all stress concentrators are assumed to
behave as worst-case notches.
Level 2 is a slightly enhanced procedure allowing for the ef-
fects of some geometries and the number of thermal shock cycles
expected in a component lifetime. Conservatism at this level is
moderate.
Level 3 is an advanced analysis procedure that requires more
detailed input data. Conservatism is at its lowest level in this
analysis. Improved analysis includes
• A detailed temperature profile across a specimen during a
shock to establish surface stress ranges and
• Cyclic stress strain relationships at geometrical discontinui-
ties to accurately allow for the effects of stress concentra-
tors.
• Improved fatigue initiation curves 共S-N curves兲 for the par-
ticular material and stress state.
A procedure for each level is suggested in the following sec-
tions.
Level 1 Analysis. At this level, the maximum theoretical ther-
mal stress amplitude developed during a thermal shock 共Sm兲 is
compared to the allowable stress amplitude based on the design
considerations of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The
effects of geometric discontinuities 共stress concentrators兲 are al-
lowed for using a stress concentration factor k f .
Maximum Theoretical Thermal Stress 共Smax兲. The maximum
thermal stress amplitude generated during a thermal shock tran-
sient is calculated by Eq. 共1兲:
E␣共⌬Tm兲
Smax = kf 共1兲
2共1 − ␯兲
Smax is the maximum thermal stress amplitude generated during a
thermal shock. E is the elastic modulus, ␣ is the coefficient of
thermal expansion, ⌬Tm is the maximum possible magnitude of
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded 01 Feb 2009 to 130.194.10.86. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
thermal shock, ␯ is Poisson’s ratio, and k f is the stress concentra-
tion factor due to geometric discontinuities. This has values in the
range 1–5.
With E, ␣, and ␯ being material constants, the only remaining
unknowns are ⌬Tm and k f . Methods for determining these param-
eters are given below. Note that in this work, the assumption of
temperature independence of E and ␣ is acceptable as long as the
product of the two does not vary by more than 10% over the
expected temperature range. This is the case for carbon steel be-
tween 100° C and 370° C.
Magnitude of Thermal Shock 共⌬Tm兲. The maximum magnitude
of the thermal shock 共⌬Tm兲 can be determined from design data
based on the worst possible thermal shock condition 共Tmax
− Tmin兲, where Tmax and Tmin correspond to the maximum and
minimum possible temperatures of the process fluid passing
through the component during operation.
Level 1 assumes instantaneous change of temperature at the
surface of the metal, that is, infinite heat transfer coefficient. This
is normally approximately correct for water on clean steel where
heat transfer coefficients of around 10 kW/ m2 K are seen. It can
be shown that at this level there is little change in thermal shock
stresses as the heat transfer coefficient increases up to infinite. In
level 3 this conservatism could be removed.
Stress Concentration Effects 共k f 兲. To include the effects of ge-
ometry and other stress concentrators such as machining marks,
suitable values for k f need to be selected. In accordance with the
fatigue design rules of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, Sec. VIII, Division 2 the maximum value for k f that is
generated by a severe notch 共or corner兲 is 5.0. Similarly, for a flat
surface free of machining marks, k f can be taken as 1.0. It is
recommended that in a level 1 analysis a value of 5.0 be selected
for all discontinuities unless clear evidence of the lack of sharp
machining marks on the component can be made. Values of k f less
than 5.0 will need to be justified using methods similar to that
used in a level 2 analysis.
Crack Initiation. The generation of thermal shock cracks is in-
dicated if the half maximum theoretical stress amplitude 共0.5
Smax兲 exceeds the allowable design stress amplitude Sa. The al-
lowable design stress amplitude may be taken from the S-N de-
sign curves contained in Sec. VIII, Division 2 of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code 共Fig. 5-110.1 for the case of carbon and
low alloy steels兲. This curve, as is well known, is generated from
entirely different data using mechanical tests. For the purposes of
this work the curve is adopted as a useful and convenient input,
which we have found successful under the conditions described.
Generation of a new curve specifically for thermal shock would be
a large additional task that might be contemplated at level 3.
Example. Using this method the permitted ⌬Tm can be calcu-
lated from transposed equation 共1兲
2共1 − ␯兲 Sa
⌬Tm = 共2兲
E␣ k f
With Sa from ASME VIII Div. 2, Fig 5.110.1, typical carbon
steel values, and a k f of 5, it is found that the permitted ⌬Tm for
1000 cycles is 123° C and for 100,000 cycles is 30° C. It is to be
noted that there are no effects from steady load or environmental
conditions, and this is to be expected for fatigue initiation. These
results can be compared to the EPRI guidelines for economizer
headers 关12兴, which limit ⌬Tm to 21° C. The guidelines presented
here will normally permit much higher levels of ⌬Tm. However,
these results can still be restrictive since thermal shocks exceeding
100° C or 200° C are often seen in power plants and this forces us
to consider all the conservatisms in the analysis by introducing a
level 2 and 3 analysis.
Level 2 Analysis. Possible improvements include
FEBRUARY 2007, Vol. 129 / 129
 • Magnitude of thermal shock 共⌬Tm兲 determined from mea-
sured or calculated data at the component surface during a
thermal transient.
• Stress concentration effects 共k f 兲 determined theoretically or
experimentally.
Level 2 analysis should allow ⌬Tm values two to three times
higher than level 1, but sharp notches will always require k f
= 5.0.
Level 3 Analysis. At this level the local strains developed in a
component during a thermal shock transient are determined using
advanced techniques. This level of analysis may require the com-
plete time-temperature history of the component during thermal
shock transient as well as accurate representations of stress-strain
effects and geometric details. Appropriate actual S-N fatigue data
curves can be used
This procedure may allow a further factor of 2-3 increase in the
permitted ⌬Tm when compared to level 2 but again sharp notches
will always require k f = 5.0.
Fitness for Purpose Cases
Fitness for purpose assessment will occur after the crack has
been initiated and is normally conducted on existing plants where
thermal shock cracking has been found. In this case we are no
longer interested in initiation, but in the growth rate of the cracks
and, in the case of thermal shock cracking, whether the crack will
arrest and thus not require repair.
Currently there is only limited information about crack growth
rates, which, as will be seen, depends on a large number of fac-
tors, particularly in the corrosion dominated regime. As a result
the level 1,2,3 type approach has not yet been developed.
Assessment of recent experimental data suggests that the pro-
posals for the growth and arrest guidelines can be simplified from
those we previously suggested 关13兴. There are four mechanisms to
be considered in the growth of thermal shock cracking.
1. Growth due to stress exceeding the tensile strength of the
material, high strain fatigue 共“HSF”兲 region
2. Growth due to corrosion dominated growth mechanisms
3. Paris growth region 共affected by environment兲
4. Final failure. If the crack does not slow down to the point of
arrest, there is plastic collapse of the remaining ligament in
carbon steels.
1. Plastic growth region. Plastic growth of the crack occurs
over about the first 1 mm or so in our experiments. This is largely
the region in which the stress exceeds the tensile strength of the
material 共which is specified as 410 MPa in our specimens兲. In the
plastic growth zone the growth may be covered by a growth law
proposed, for example, by Skelton 关14兴.
da
= B共a − L兲 共3兲
dN
a is the depth of crack 共including starter notch兲, N is the number
of thermal shock cycles, and B and L are constants to be deter-
mined experimentally.
The constants for this equation can be determined by examining
the data. For the “best fit” solid line in Fig. 5, L was set at the
depth of the starter notch 共3.5 mm兲 and the slope B can be set by
a least squares fitting to the slope of all the data in the HSF zone.
The dashed line “conservative” line in Fig. 5 is upper bound to all
the data and is found by setting L at 2.8 mm. The specific equa-
tion for the “best fit” line thus is:
da
= 4.88 ⫻ 10−4共a − 3.5 ⫻ 10−3兲m/cycle. 共4兲
dN
2. Corrosion-dominated growth region. Once the stress starts to
fall, then growth may continue by corrosion. This growth regime
130 / Vol. 129, FEBRUARY 2007
Downloaded 01 Feb 2009 to 130.194.10.86. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 10 Corrosion dominated growth region for thermal shock
cracking
was not seen on all of our specimens, particularly those with no
applied mechanical loads and so the situations where corrosion
dominated growth occurs and where it does not also need to be
identified.
The proposed guideline thus requires two key definitions as
shown in Fig. 10.
a. Definition of when corrosion dominated growth oc-
curs. This takes the form of when the thermal shock
stress intensity exceeds a certain level. This level will
take account of both applied mean stress and crack
depth.
b. Defining a value of crack growth rate per cycle in the
corrosion dominated growth region.
Corrosion dominated crack growth is characterized by growth
that is not a function of the stress intensity range, but is dominated
by the factors that control corrosion, in particular the diffusion of
species through the crack. In this work all the relevant factors
have not yet been investigated, but there are some data for the
following issues.
• Crack opening. If there is no primary stress, corrosion
dominated growth does not appear to occur. This is at-
tributed to the fact that the crack will only be opened for
diffusion for short periods of the cycle. Increasing pri-
mary stress should increase the rate of corrosion crack
growth. Currently the work only has two values of pri-
mary stress, 0 and 90 MPa, so the effect of this factor has
not yet been fully characterized.
• Crack depth. The deeper the crack the more time the
diffusion takes and corrosion virtually stops after the
crack grows to a certain length 共for the shorter cycle
lengths studied here兲.
• Cycling time. Though only partially examined so far, this
is clearly relevant in the corrosion dominated region.
• Concentration of species. The experiments reported here
control pH and dissolved oxygen 共DO兲 in the spray wa-
ter. Only introductory investigations of the effect of spe-
cies concentration by varying DO have been attempted.
a. The stress required for corrosion dominated growth to
occur. The region where corrosion-dominated growth
might occur can be defined following Gabetta et al. 关11兴.
This type of growth occurs when the applied ⌬K is
greater than a critical value termed ⌬Kc. ⌬Kc is defined
by them as
Transactions of the ASME
 1 1 − R da
⌬K2c = ␴ yE␶ 共5兲
␣ASCR 1 + R dt
␣ASCR is a constant proposed by Gabetta et al. that relates
an “active surface creation rate” 共ACSR兲 to the rate of
change of crack mouth opening distance during a load
cycle, R is Kmin / Kmax, ␶ is the cycle time, 7 s in the
current case, and da / dt is a crack growth rate with time.
Currently the Monash experiments cannot distinguish
all these factors, but there is enough data to provide the
following interpretation for the conditions.
1−R
⌬K2c = 1.45 ⫻ 103 共6兲
1+R
For the current case the criterion for corrosion domi-
nated growth could be further simplified to the form:
725
⌬K ⬎ 共7兲
Kmean
In this form it is readily seen that if Kmean is low or
zero, then no corrosion dominated growth will occur. Us-
ing Fig. 4 it can be seen that the condition will only be
satisfied for a range of crack growth in the region of a
= 5 – 10 mm in these experiments.
b. Crack growth rates in corrosion-dominated region. Once
corrosion dominated growth occurs, the growth rate is
determined by time of opening and the primary stress.
The growth rate does not appear to be related to ⌬K 关15兴.
The growth rate in the corrosion dominated region for the
current experiments, which have a cycle time of about
15 min is given by
da
= 7 ⫻ 10−7 共8兲
dN
3. Paris law type growth region. This can also be termed the
LEFM growth region. As the crack grows the stresses fall and
corrosion 共if it occurs兲 is no longer the dominant growth mecha-
nism since the diffusion lengths are too long. In this region the
growth rate is found to fit the “Paris law” equation 关11兴.
da
= C共⌬K兲m 共9兲
dN
where C and m are constants that are dependent on the environ-
ment, the mean stress, and the stress range.
This equation has been examined and found to fit the data pro-
viding some care is taken in defining the stresses involved in ⌬K.
The values of C and m can be found from testing.
For the data collected in this study, the “freely corroding ma-
rine” crack growth equations in BS 7910 关10兴 tend to be ad-
equately conservative. Alternatively, a curve fitting exercise to the
data produced the equation.
da
= 5.28 ⫻ 10−16共⌬K兲5.89 共10兲
dN
4. Final failure. Because this study is dealing with carbon steels
in fairly warm conditions below the creep level, final failure if a
crack keeps growing will be by normal plastic collapse normally
detected by leaking. This can happen when mechanical stresses
are high and so must be considered in an assessment guideline.
The limits that would seem to be appropriate are covered by the
failure assessment diagram 共FAD兲 of BS 7910. There has been no
through thickness failure case in the Monash tests. However, it is
known from industrial case studies that leaks are observed in
plants when high stresses are present 共see Ref. 关1兴兲.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded 01 Feb 2009 to 130.194.10.86. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Conclusions
This work reported here has demonstrated the factors that cause
and drive thermal shock cracks.
Design and Operation: Asme Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code and EPRI Guidelines. A key interest area is design guide-
lines for vessels subject to thermal shock. The guidelines we are
investigating will provide the basis for design and operation of
pressure vessels with sharp geometrical features, which may be
damaged by thermal shock. There is little information about this
case currently in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
EPRI guidelines 关12兴 for assessing the initiation of thermal
shock cracking are highly conservative. Using the simplest level
of our guidelines 共level 1兲, typical carbon steels with a sharp notch
are permitted; ⌬Tm for 1000 cycles is 123° C and for
100,000 cycles is 30° C. If we use level 3 analysis and remove
notches from the component being considered, then the ⌬Tm per-
mitted would rise probably by a factor of at least 3, that is, to
90° C for 100,000 cycles. These results can be compared to the
EPRI guidelines for economizer headers, which limit ⌬Tm to
21° C, which is a very low level, virtually unachievable in most
power stations.
A key result of this work is that the features such as the sharp
corners illustrated in Fig. 2 should be avoided in design. Such
corners are not stress concentrators in the way normally consid-
ered in design since they may not be highly stressed in normal
operation. However, in thermal shock they start to behave like
sharp notches. Such sharp corners frequently are used simply be-
cause that is the cheapest construction method. However, it would
be appropriate for the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code to
dissuade the use of the features where thermal shocks could occur
and corners 共such as shown in Figs. 2共a兲 and 2共b兲兲 are found on
many figures in the code.
Growth Guidelines for Thermal Shock Cracking. The dis-
covery of thermal shock cracking often by opening up a neglected
part of a plant and observing it visually can be very disconcerting
for the operators. Often the immediate response is to carry out
expensive repairs or replacements. These could, in fact, be
pointless.
It has long been known that many thermal shock driven cracks
arrest at fairly shallow depths and only a few eventually leak. The
experimental work presented here starts to indicate the growth
mechanisms involved in thermal shock crack growth and presents
the possibility of fitness for purpose assessments of thermal shock
cracks when they are found in-service.
This work has identified that there are four mechanisms to be
considered in the growth of thermal shock cracking.
1. Growth due to stress exceeding the tensile strength of the
material—a high strain fatigue 共“HSF”兲 region.
2. Growth due to corrosion dominated growth mechanisms
where the growth rate is constant and independent of ⌬K.
Corrosion occurs while the crack is open and not very deep.
The proposal is that this occurs when the applied range of
stress intensity factor, ⌬K exceeds some critical value ⌬Kc.
The value of ⌬Kc depends on a number of factors not fully
investigated in this study such as time of crack opening and
oxygen content of water.
3. Once the stresses start falling and corrosion rate falls, Paris
growth occurs 共affected by environment兲. Thermal shock
cracking is likely to arrest in this region if there are no high
primary applied stresses.
4. Final failure occurs only if primary stresses are high enough.
This occurs by plastic collapse of the remaining ligament in
carbon steels.
FEBRUARY 2007, Vol. 129 / 131
 Acknowledgment
This work has been conducted with the assistance of an Aus-
tralian Research Council grant with contributions from HRL Tech-
nology Ltd., Optima Energy, Western Power, Hazelwood Power,
Loy Yang Power, Edison Mission, Pacific Power, and EPRI.
References
关1兴 Alexander, C., Frey, J., and Shin, S., 2004, “Evaluation of the failure in the
Texas Genco W. A. Parish Unit #8 Cold Reheat Line,” 4th Int Conf., Advances
in Material Technology for Fossil Power Plants, Hilton Head, SC, Oct. 26–28,
EPRI, Palo Alto.
关2兴 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2004, “Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code,” ASME, New York. 2004 edition is used unless other wise noted.
关3兴 Dooley, R. B., and McNaughton, W. P., 1996, Boiler Tube Failures: Theory
and Practice, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
关4兴 Ng, H. W., and Lee, C. K., 1997, “Remaining Life of a Vessel Containing an
Internal Corner Crack Under Repeated Thermal Shock,” Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng., Part E, 211, pp. 215–219.
关5兴 Yagawa, G., and Ishihara, K., 1989, “Cleavage and Ductile Thermal Shock
Fractures of Corner Cracked Nozzles,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.,
111, pp. 241–247.
关6兴 Kerezsi, B. B., Kotousov, A., and Price, J. W. H., 2000, “Experimental Appa-
ratus for Thermal Shock Fatigue Investigations,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Pip-
ing, 77共7兲, pp. 425–434.
132 / Vol. 129, FEBRUARY 2007
Downloaded 01 Feb 2009 to 130.194.10.86. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
关7兴 Vitale, E., and Beghini, M., 1991, “Thermal Shock Fracture Experiments on
Large Size Plates of A533-B Steel,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 46, pp.
289–338.
关8兴 Marsh, D. J., 1981, “A Thermal Shock Fatigue Study of Type 304 and 316
Stainless Steels,” Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 4, pp. 179–195.
关9兴 Austen, I. M., and Walker, F. F., 1977, “Quantitative Understanding of the
Effects of Mechanical and Environmental Behaviour on Corrosion Fatigue
Crack Growth Behaviour,” The Influence of Environment on Fatigue, I Mech
Conf, London, pp. 1–10.
关10兴 British Standards, 2000, BS 7910:1999—Guide on Methods for Assessing the
Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion Welded Structures, BSI, London.
关11兴 Gabetta, G., Rinaldi, C., and Pozzi, D., 1990, “A Model for Environmentally
Assisted Crack Growth Rate,” Environmentally Assisted Cracking: Science
and Engineering, ASTM STP 1049, American Society for Testing and Mate-
rials, Philadelphia, p. 266.
关12兴 Stevenson, G. G., 1989, Guidelines for the Prevention of Economiser Inlet
Header Cracking in Fossil Boilers, GS-5949, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
关13兴 Price, J. W. H., and Kerezsi, B. B., 2004, “Potential Guidelines for Design and
Fitness for Purpose for Carbon Steel Components Subject to Repeated Ther-
mal Shock,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 81共2兲, pp. 173–180.
关14兴 Skelton, R. P., 1982, “Growth of Short Cracks During High Strain Fatigue and
Thermal Cycling,” Low Cycle Fatigue and Life Prediction, ASTM STP 770,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 337–381.
关15兴 Kerezsi, B. B., Price, J. W. H., and Ibrahim, R., 2003, “A Two-Stage Model for
Predicting Crack Growth, Due to Repeated Thermal Shock,” Eng. Fract.
Mech., 70共6兲, pp. 721–730.
Transactions of the ASME