Thermal Fatigue of Waterwalls Due to Water Cannons

Place Image Here

12722400
12722400
Thermal Fatigue of Waterwalls Due
to Water Cannons

1014185

Final Report, December 2007

EPRI Project Manager

K. Coleman

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com

12722400
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY
are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright © 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

12722400
CITATIONS

This report was prepared by

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

1300 W.T. Harris Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28262

Principal Investigator
K. Coleman

This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:

Thermal Fatigue of Waterwalls Due to Water Cannons. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2007. 1014185.

iii
12722400
12722400
REPORT SUMMARY

This report investigates thermal fatigue of waterwall tubes that are cleaned with water cannons,
one of the two main types of device that use water to clean the slag from boiler tubes (water
lances are the second type). Thermal fatigue is known to reduce the service life of tubes, and it
has been cited as the cause of several tube failures. What has been less clear, however, is
precisely how thermal fatigue compromises remaining service life—and plants that regularly use
high-pressure water cleaning would benefit from having an estimate of the time to damage
initiation and crack propagation. In particular, the owners of boilers burning Powder River Basin
(PRB) coal and their maintenance personnel stand to gain from the research contained in this
report.

Background
Concerns over the impact of water streams used to remove ash deposits from waterwalls first
arose in the 1980s when the cleaning technique emerged. At that time, the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) sponsored research to determine how water cleaning would affect the
life of boiler tubing. The research, which is described in Water Blowing of Fireside Deposits in
Coal-Fired Utility Boilers (CS-4914), focused on damage in two different materials—low-
chromium alloy (SA 213-T2) and carbon steel (SA 210-A1).
In 2004, EPRI sponsored work to investigate the thermal impact of the newer, computer-
controlled water cannons on waterwalls. This information appears in the report, Demonstration
of Clyde Bergmann Water Cannons at Alabama Power Company’s Plant Miller Unit 1
(1011120), an extensive history from different sootblower operating scenarios. To accurately
determine the conditions leading to fatigue damage and to predict associated crack propagation
rates, it was suggested that a more detailed analysis of the thermal impact on boiler tubes be
conducted.

Objectives
• To investigate the effects of high-pressure water cannon streams on waterwalls and to assess
the resulting fatigue life of boiler tubing
• To develop an analytical model that predicts the lifespan of tubes subjected to water cleaning
• To recommend what future work should be conducted in order to perfect a predictive model

v
12722400
Approach
A two-year project began in January 2006. First, Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) developed a survey
questionnaire and cover letter, which EPRI distributed to users of water cleaning equipment
within the North American power generation industry. An independent consultant reviewed and
assessed survey responses. Next, B&W fabricated two instrumented test panels to measure
temperature and fluid flow. During a planned outage at Alabama Power Company’s Miller
Unit 1 (which uses PRB coal and a Clyde Bergmann SmartCannon water cleaning system), these
instrumented test panels were installed in a waterwall to measure the temperature changes and
fluid flow (steam) changes that occur during water cannon cleaning operations. Data were
gathered from February to August 2006—after Miller Unit 1 resumed service.
EPRI developed two-dimensional and three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA) models to
determine the thermal stresses and associated fatigue life resulting from water cleaning. The
models are based on accurate temperature measurements taken from the same unit as the global
temperature data used in Miller Unit 1.

Results
When the FEA model assumed a worst-case temperature drop of 166.67°C (300°F), the fatigue
life for SA213 T2 tubing was calculated to be 2700 cycles. There are several possible
interpretations of these data. One is that only tubes experiencing repeated temperature drops
approaching 166.67°C (300°F) have the potential for fatigue cracking at cycle counts exceeding
2700. However, use of the worst-case temperature drop demonstrates how the three-dimensional
FEA model can be effectively used to predict or explain limited fatigue life at critical locations in
the panel where controlled water cleaning is more difficult or where large temperature drops
inexplicably occur.

EPRI Perspective
EPRI anticipates that the FEA models developed in this project, if further extended and refined,
could eventually be used to better understand water cleaning and to employ it in a way that
minimizes thermal fatigue damage to waterwalls. Such techniques would probably include an
optimized selection and implementation of water cleaning frequency, duration, and travel speeds.
Using the FEA models as predictive tools, plants can more accurately characterize the projected
service lives of water-cleaned panels.

Keywords
Finite element analysis (FEA)
Slag
Thermal fatigue
Water cannons
Water cleaning
Waterwalls

vi
12722400
ABSTRACT

Boilers burning Powder River Basin (PRB) coal have a propensity to slag the waterwalls.
Slagging of the waterwalls reduces heat transfer in the waterwalls and increases the temperature
downstream in the superheater and reheater sections. This slag is easily removed from the
surfaces of tubes through water cleaning operations. However, the resultant thermal shock can
cause thermal fatigue and limit tube service life. Several tube failures have occurred due to the
thermal fatigue damage caused by water cleaning. The amount of damage that occurs during
each cleaning cycle is not known, and hence the time to damage initiation and crack propagation
is not predictable. Results of this 5-task, 24-month project have established a better
understanding of the thermal stresses developed through the use of water cleaning to remove slag
from boiler waterwalls. In this project, a thermal fatigue analysis of boiler waterwall tubes
subjected to water cannon cleaning was conducted based on the experimental temperature data
that were taken at Alabama Power Company’s Miller Unit 1. Both two-dimensional (2D) and
three-dimensional (3D) FEA models were built and used to determine tube fatigue life based on
a measured worst-case temperature drop of 166.67°C (300°F) due to water cleaning, and the
fatigue life for SA213 T2 tubing was calculated to be 2700 cycles.

vii
12722400
12722400
CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 History of Damage .......................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Recent Experience ......................................................................................................1-2

2 PROJECT WORK PLAN........................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Task 1: Survey of Water Cannon Field Experience .....................................................2-1
2.2 Task 2: Site Selection and Test Panel Fabrication and Installation .............................2-1
2.3 Task 3: Recording Field Temperature Data.................................................................2-2
2.4 Task 4: FEA Modeling and Fatigue Life Prediction......................................................2-2
2.5 Task 5: Project Administration .....................................................................................2-3

3 PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS .........................................................................................3-1

3.1 Task 1: Survey of Water Cannon Field Experience .....................................................3-1
3.2 Task 2: Site Selection and Test Panel Fabrication and Installation .............................3-1
3.3 Task 3: Recording Field Temperature Data.................................................................3-8
3.4 Task 4: FEA Modeling and Fatigue Life Prediction......................................................3-8
3.4.1 Background .........................................................................................................3-8
3.4.2 Geometry and Materials......................................................................................3-8
3.4.3 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................3-10
3.4.4 Thermal Finite Element Analysis.......................................................................3-18
3.4.4.1 Radiation Analysis ......................................................................................3-20
3.4.4.2 2D Benchmark ............................................................................................3-22
3.4.4.3 Mesh Refinement Verification .....................................................................3-27
3.4.4.4 3D Model and Analysis ...............................................................................3-31
3.4.5 Structural Finite Element Analysis ....................................................................3-38
3.4.6 Fatigue Analysis................................................................................................3-43
3.5 Project Summary with Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................3-44

ix
12722400
4 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................4-1

A CONVERSION TABLE ......................................................................................................... A-1

x
12722400
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1 Test Panel with Chordal Thermocouples, Heat Flux Sensor, and Thermowell ........3-2
Figure 3-2 Pitot Tube Assembly.................................................................................................3-3
Figure 3-3 Construction of Test Panel .......................................................................................3-4
Figure 3-4 Detail of Test Panel ..................................................................................................3-5
Figure 3-5 Installation of Test Panel ..........................................................................................3-5
Figure 3-6 Test Panel Inside Firebox.........................................................................................3-6
Figure 3-7 Test Panel with Heat Flux Sensor and Chordal TC Details ......................................3-6
Figure 3-8 Installation of Pitot Tube Panel .................................................................................3-7
Figure 3-9 Completion of Installation of Pitot Tube Panel with Pressure Transmitters ..............3-7
Figure 3-10 Waterwall Tube Dimensions...................................................................................3-9
Figure 3-11 TC Installation Log Sheet .....................................................................................3-12
Figure 3-12 Cross-Sectional Location of Chordal and Button TCs ..........................................3-13
Figure 3-13 Typical Small-ΔT Event Temperature History—ΔT = 26.11°C (47°F)...................3-16
Figure 3-14 Typical Medium-ΔT Event Temperature History—ΔT = 103.89°C (187°F)...........3-17
Figure 3-15 Typical Large-ΔT Event Temperature History—For Analysis—ΔT = 149.44°C
(269°F) .............................................................................................................................3-18
Figure 3-16 Large ΔT Initial Steady-State Temperature Distribution Assuming Nominal
TC Positions.....................................................................................................................3-19
Figure 3-17 Large ΔT Initial Steady-State Temperature Distributions for Range of TC
Positions...........................................................................................................................3-20
Figure 3-18 Thermal Analysis Model and BCs ........................................................................3-21
Figure 3-19 Total Viewfactor to Gas as a Function of Tube Position.......................................3-22
Figure 3-20 Assumed Water Cannon Impingement Heat Transfer Coefficient Distribution.....3-24
Figure 3-21 2D Predicted Temperature Histories Comparison with TC Data (Refer to
Figure 3-15)......................................................................................................................3-25
Figure 3-22 Temperature Contours for 2D Benchmark ...........................................................3-26
Figure 3-23 Temperature Contours for 2D Benchmark (Figure 3-22)—Detail .........................3-27
Figure 3-24 Least-Refined Converged Mesh Used for Subsequent Analysis..........................3-28
Figure 3-25 Mesh Refinement Temperature History Results...................................................3-28
Figure 3-26 Stress History Results for Mesh Refinement Check.............................................3-29
Figure 3-27 Tube Crown Through-Wall Temperature Distribution Comparison at 16
Seconds ...........................................................................................................................3-30

xi
12722400
Figure 3-28 Tube Crown Through-Wall Stress Distribution Comparison at 16 Seconds .........3-32
Figure 3-29 3D Waterwall FE Model........................................................................................3-33
Figure 3-30 Comparison Between 2D and 3D Thermal FEA Results Versus Recorded
Data..................................................................................................................................3-34
Figure 3-31 Temperature Contours for 3D Thermal Analysis ..................................................3-35
Figure 3-32 Comparison Between 2D and 3D Thermal FEA Results Versus Recorded
Data (Figure 3-30)—Detail ...............................................................................................3-36
Figure 3-33 Field Variable Contours for 3D Analysis Showing Water Cannon Movement ......3-37
Figure 3-34 Structural BCs ......................................................................................................3-39
Figure 3-35 Predicted Stress History for Water Cannon Cleaning Event ................................3-40
Figure 3-36 2D Versus 3D Component Stress and Temperature History Comparisons..........3-41
Figure 3-37 3D Analysis von Mises Stress Contours...............................................................3-42
Figure 3-38 Predicted Stress History for Water Cannon Cleaning Event (Figure 3-35)—
Detail ................................................................................................................................3-43

xii
12722400
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1 SA-213 Gr. T2 (Seamless Tubing) Material Properties—Physical ............................3-9

Table 3-2 SA-213 Gr. T2 (Seamless Tubing) Material Properties—Mechanical......................3-10
Table 3-3 Summary of TC Data ...............................................................................................3-14

xiii
12722400
12722400
1
INTRODUCTION

To maintain optimum operation and performance in fossil-fueled commercial boiler systems, it is

necessary to control the cleanliness of boiler waterwalls and to mitigate the accumulation of
deposits (slag or ash), which inhibit thermal heat transfer. Typically, water cleaning is used to
remove the slag deposits from walls of fossil-fired power plants to maintain high heat transfer
rates. Water cleaning involves the removal of combustion deposits with high velocity jets of air,
steam, or water.

Two different types of water cleaning equipment are generally used. One type resembles a
typical steam or air sootblower—it is mounted on the same side of the boiler as the wall to be
cleaned and covers a relatively small area. This type of water-cleaning device, or sootblower, is
known in industry as a water lance. Many water lances are required to cover an entire waterwall.

A second type of water cleaning device directs a high velocity stream of water for blasting the
surfaces of waterwalls to remove deposits, particularly in boiler systems that burn Powder River
Basin (PRB) coals. These devices are mounted on the wall opposite the boiler, shoot across the
firebox, and are known as water cannons. Because water cannons are usually computer-
controlled, the process of their use is called intelligent sootblowing. These devices generally
offer some advantages compared to conventional retractable sootblowers, including articulation
and control with greater resolution, facilitated access to the whole waterwall surface area, and
lower operational costs. Although these cleaning systems are coupled to programmable logic
controllers with feedback sensors to optimize cleaning, there is concern that multiple cycles of
severe thermal shock to the waterwalls incurred during water cannon operation will ultimately
result in premature fatigue cracking and failure of waterwall tubes.

1.1 History of Damage

Concerns over the effects of using water streams to clean ash deposits from waterwalls first arose
in the 1980s, when these cleaning techniques were first used. At that time, EPRI sponsored
research to see what effect this type of cleaning would have on the life of boiler tubing [1]. The
research focused on damage in two different materials, low-chromium-alloy (SA 213-T2), and
carbon-steel (SA 210-A1). The results suggested that the T2 material was substantially more
resistant to thermal fatigue damage from water blowing than the A1 material. Other conclusions
included:
• In the carbon-steel tubes, circumferentially oriented cracks (those extending around the tube)
were deeper than longitudinally oriented cracks.
• Furnace wall tubes constructed of SA 213-T2 will last much longer when subjected to water
lancing than walls constructed with SA 210-A1 tubes.

1-1
12722400
Introduction

• Failures occurring in furnace wall tubes as a result of water lancing are expected to be minor
leaks from narrow, circumferentially oriented cracks rather than catastrophic tube ruptures
from longitudinally oriented cracks.
• Fatigue crack growth analysis is a more appropriate method for estimating the onset of
failures in SA 210-A1 furnace wall tubes subjected to water lancing than fatigue (S-N)
analysis.

1.2 Recent Experience

EPRI sponsored work in 2004 to investigate the thermal impact of newer computer controlled
water cannons on waterwalls. This information is reported in Demonstration of Clyde Bergmann
Water Cannons at Alabama Power Company’s Plant Miller Unit 1 [2] and contains a large
amount of thermal history from different sootblower operating scenarios. Stress cycles were
estimated globally using temperatures from heat flux sensors. This allowed monitoring of stress
cycles and determination of temperature changes in areas where the sensors were located.
However, to accurately determine the conditions leading to fatigue damage and to predict
associated crack propagation rates, it was suggested that a more detailed analysis of the thermal
impact on boiler tubes be conducted. The present work strives to extend this type of technical
understanding and to develop an effective analytical model for predicting tube life where water
cleaning is used.

In the current project, 2D and 3D finite element models were developed and used to determine
the thermal stresses and associated fatigue life resulting from water cleaning based on accurate
temperature measurements taken from the same unit as the global temperature data used in
Alabama Power Company’s Plant Miller Unit 1 [2].

Miller Unit 1 is a 700-MWe unit with a Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) opposed wall-fired boiler.
The unit, originally designed to burn eastern bituminous coal, switched to PRB coal during the
mid-1990s. During the fourth quarter 2001, Plant Miller installed a Clyde Bergmann
SmartCannon water cleaning system.

1-2
12722400
2
PROJECT WORK PLAN

To investigate the effects of high pressure water cannon streams on waterwalls and to assess the
resulting fatigue life of boiler tubing, a 5-task, 24-month work plan was developed. The project,
initiated in January 2006, consisted of the following tasks.

2.1 Task 1: Survey of Water Cannon Field Experience

A comprehensive survey of field experience was conducted by soliciting responses from EPRI
utility members about their experience with water cleaning systems. While B&W organized and
prepared the questionnaire for distribution, EPRI sent out the questionnaire to serve as a
noncommercial, independent, impartial clearinghouse for the responses. Manufacturers of the
cleaning equipment were additionally asked to participate by supplying user lists and any
nonproprietary data they might have accumulated from their customers. The responses were
evaluated by a third-party consultant retained by EPRI, again to be impartial and to identify
common experiences and trends with respect to the effects of water cleaning on tube integrity
and service life. EPRI will publish the results of the survey separately as an addendum to this
report.

2.2 Task 2: Site Selection and Test Panel Fabrication and Installation

The site selected for recording field temperature data was Alabama Power Company’s Miller
Steam Plant, Unit I, where water cannons have been installed and tested since 2002. This unit is
a 700-MWe system equipped with a B&W opposed wall-fired boiler. Originally designed to burn
eastern bituminous coal, Unit I switched to PRB coal during the mid-1990s. Under an EPRI-
sponsored project, performance of the water cannons was monitored during 2003, and results
have been documented in Demonstration of Clyde Bergmann Water Cannons at Alabama Power
Company’s Plant Miller Unit 1, published November 2004 [2]. In this project, the damage to
waterwall tubes due to water cannon thermal shock and the projected effects on the service life
of tubes were not fully characterized, and the need to do so established the basis of this project.

Two instrumented test panels, one incorporating heat flux sensors (positioned in the membrane)
as well as chordal thermocouples (positioned at the tube fireside crown) and another
incorporating a pitot tube to measure fluid flow, were fabricated and installed in the waterwall of
Unit I during a planned outage in February 2006.

2-1
12722400
Project Work Plan

2.3 Task 3: Recording Field Temperature Data

Following installation of the test panels fabricated in task 2, real-time temperature and heat flux
data were recorded at Miller Steam Plant, Unit I, during the summer of 2006. The data were
accumulated and digitally stored using a desktop computer system installed at this site.
Periodically, the data were remotely downloaded by B&W and transferred to Excel format for
subsequent analysis.

2.4 Task 4: FEA Modeling and Fatigue Life Prediction

A comprehensive study of the effects of water cleaning, including the development of equivalent
thermal boundary conditions on the tube surface during water jet impact, was conducted by EPRI
in the mid-1980s, and results were documented in Water Blowing of Fireside Deposits in Coal-
Fired Utility Boilers [1]. That study was the basis for further investigations into the effects of
water cleaning on boiler tubes and superheater tubes. In later analyses, equivalent surface heat
transfer coefficients during sootblower cleaning were developed by solving, in an approximate
iterative manner, a heat conduction problem on an instrumented boiler.

In task 4, 2D and 3D finite element analyses (FEA) involving computer models suitable for
estimating stress conditions within boiler tubes were used to determine thermal stresses
generated during water cannon operation. The magnitude of stresses was then used to estimate
fatigue life resulting from normal water cannon operation.

The general technical approach in modeling the system was as follows:

1. Determine, through iterative solution of the heat transfer problem of an instrumented boiler
tube, the appropriate boundary conditions to be applied to a boiler tube during water cannon
cleaning. As a basis, results of Water Blowing of Fireside Deposits in Coal-Fired Utility
Boilers were used.
2. Apply the boundary conditions determined in step 1 to a model of the Unit I boiler.
3. From the resulting time-dependent temperature distributions, determine the stress histories
that cause fatigue damage.
4. Assess the observed, measured stress time history for water cannon cleaning.
5. Compute the fatigue life for tubes exposed to water cannon cleaning, and draw conclusions
regarding the damage caused by this type of cleaning.

The computer program ABAQUS was used to compute the transient heat transfer solution and
the stresses in the tube. The heat transfer model employed by these programs incorporated 2D
and 3D finite element, transient solutions to the heat transfer problem of a waterwall with time
varying radiation, fluid temperature, and surface heat transfer coefficients on the ID/OD
surfaces.

2-2
12722400
 Project Work Plan

2.5 Task 5: Project Administration

This project was led and administrated by B&W—Power Generation Group, located in
Barberton, OH, in conjunction with EPRI, the host utility (Alabama Power’s Miller Unit 1), and
the B&W Nuclear Operations Group.

2-3
12722400
12722400
3
PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

3.1 Task 1: Survey of Water Cannon Field Experience

Under task 1 of the project, a first draft of the survey questionnaire was prepared and circulated
for review and comment at B&W and then sent to EPRI, Southern Company, Diamond Power
Company, and Clyde Bergemann Company for review and comment. Recommendations for
improvement of the survey were incorporated, and the questionnaire was finalized for
distribution. Cover letters were also prepared for the questionnaires in order to explain the
purpose and objectives of the survey and provide the requested response date.

Based on recommendations from representatives within the power generation industry, EPRI
elected to independently coordinate and assess the responses to the survey. The prepared
questionnaires and cover letter were transmitted to EPRI in May 2006, and EPRI distributed
them to users of water cleaning equipment with a requested response date of June 30, 2006.
Responses were collected, reviewed, and assessed by an independent consultant retained by
EPRI, and results of the survey will be published separately by EPRI as an addendum to this
report.

3.2 Task 2: Site Selection and Test Panel Fabrication and Installation

Under task 2 of this project, two instrumented test panels were designed and constructed by
B&W during January 2006. One panel was fitted with both button heat flux sensors and chordal
thermocouples to measure temperature drop during water cleaning operations. A second panel
was fitted with a pitot tube assembly to measure fluid temperature and flow rate. The panels
were installed in Alabama Power’s Miller Unit 1 in February 2006 during a planned outage. The
panel fitted with chordal thermocouples and button heat flux sensors was installed at the
132.59-m (435-ft) level within zone 304. The pitot tube panel was installed in line with the first
panel at a lower, 102.41-m (336-ft) level—away from two-phase flow conditions to ensure
accurate fluid flow measurements. Details of the test panels are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2.

3-1
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-1
Test Panel with Chordal Thermocouples, Heat Flux Sensor, and Thermowell

3-2
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-2
Pitot Tube Assembly

3-3
12722400
Project Accomplishments

With respect to the thermocoupled panel, it was known that the water cannon, which could adjust
the direction of the water stream up to 45° in all directions, was mounted at the 127-m (416-ft)
level in a waterwall that was oriented at 90° and adjacent to the waterwall in which the
thermocoupled panel was installed. It was reported that the divergent water stream diameter of
the cannon ranged from 76.2–91.44 cm (30–36 in) at 0.38 to 0.57 m3 (100 to 150 gpm), and the
water pressure ranged from 1034–2068 kPa (150–300 psi), depending on the amount of slag
buildup. With a 12- by-14 mm nozzle, a typical stream traverse rate of 76.2 m/m (250 ft/m) was
used—a parameter also determined by the amount of slag buildup. It should be recognized that
when the water cannon stream was traversing the adjacent waterwall at varying acute angles
during cleaning, the actual water stream impingement pattern was more elliptical in shape than
circular.

Fabrication of the first test panel can be seen in Figure 3-3, including the wire leads for the
thermocouple (TC) junction boxes. Additional details of this instrumented panel are shown in
Figure 3-4. Images showing the installed panel are shown in Figure 3-5. Figure 3-6 shows the
test panel from the firebox side, and the yellow painted lines indicate locations of the chordal
TCs. Figure 3-7 shows the chordal TC installation in greater detail, as well as the button heat
flux sensor in the membrane. Figure 3-8 shows the installation of the pitot tube used for flow
measurement, along with the first set of isolation valves. Figure 3-9 shows the completed
installation of the pitot tube assembly with pressure transmitters.

Figure 3-3
Construction of Test Panel

3-4
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-4
Detail of Test Panel

Figure 3-5
Installation of Test Panel

3-5
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-6
Test Panel Inside Firebox

Figure 3-7
Test Panel with Heat Flux Sensor and Chordal TC Details

3-6
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-8
Installation of Pitot Tube Panel

Figure 3-9
Completion of Installation of Pitot Tube Panel with Pressure Transmitters

3-7
12722400
Project Accomplishments

3.3 Task 3: Recording Field Temperature Data

During March, April, and May 2006, three sets of temperature/fluid flow data files were
recorded from the instrumented panels using the on-site data logger and computer storage system
at Miller Unit 1. These data were remotely downloaded at the B&W facility in Barberton, Ohio,
to confirm the functionality and consistency of this capability. The frequency of data
interrogation and collection was optimized at 1 Hz.

The first extensive data set for analysis and modeling was recorded from June 3–24, 2006. The
data, which were initially recorded in text format, were subsequently downloaded at B&W and
electronically documented in Excel format to facilitate analysis. To confirm the integrity of the
data set, temperatures measured by chordal TCs during the first 8 hours of data acquisition were
plotted as a function of time for preliminary review, assessment, and characterization of
conditions during water cleaning operations. Recording of a second block of data at Miller 1 was
initiated on July 7, 2006 and extended through August 7, 2006. These data were also remotely
downloaded at B&W and cataloged in Excel format for review and analysis in task 4 of the
project.

3.4 Task 4: FEA Modeling and Fatigue Life Prediction

3.4.1 Background

The FEA of boiler waterwall tubes subjected to water cannon cleaning was based on
experimental temperature data collected from Alabama Power Company’s Miller Steam Plant
Unit 1 (B&W 700-MWe opposed wall-fired boiler). The approximately two months of waterwall
temperature data were reviewed and broken into three categories according to severity. The
largest ∆T event was investigated for its effect on the fatigue life of the waterwall tubes.

The thermal analysis of the water cannon cleaning event required back-calculating the thermal
boundary conditions that led to the measured temperature histories. The thermal analysis was
broken up into two parts. A 2D analysis was used to determine the necessary boundary condition
parameters and to verify the radiation modeling and mesh refinement, and a 3D analysis was
used to generate the 3D thermal history on a segment of waterwall and the resulting stresses. The
calculated stress range was used to determine the allowed cycles of the measured event.

3.4.2 Geometry and Materials

The waterwall was made up of vertically oriented tubes connected by webs. The space between
the tubes was so narrow that the welds between the web and the tubes consumed much of the
web itself (see Figure 3-10). The tubes were SA-213 T2 low alloy steel (1/2 Cr–1/2 Mo) and the
properties of this material are given in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. For simplicity, the webs and
associated welds were assumed to have the same properties as the tubes. This assumption was
considered valid because the fire-side crown of the tube was known to be the critical location
(that is, the observed location of cracking in the field).

3-8
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-10
Waterwall Tube Dimensions

Table 3-1
SA-213 Gr. T2 (Seamless Tubing) Material Properties—Physical

Temperature Thermal Conductivity Specific Heat Density

(°F) (Btu/hr⋅ft⋅°F) (Btu/lb⋅°F) (lb/in3)

70 23.70 0.106 0.283

200 23.50 0.113 0.283

400 23.10 0.125 0.283

600 22.20 0.135 0.283

800 21.00 0.147 0.283

1000 19.70 0.163 0.283

Source: 2004 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Section II, Materials. Part D

3-9
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Table 3-2
SA-213 Gr. T2 (Seamless Tubing) Material Properties—Mechanical

Temperature Elastic Poisson’s Mean Coefficient of Yield Tensile

(°F) Modulus Ratio Thermal Expansion Strength Strength
(psi) (--) from 70°F (ksi) (ksi)
(1/°F)

70 29.6⋅(106) 0.3 6.40⋅(10-6) 30.0 60.0

300 28.5⋅(106) 0.3 6.90⋅(10-6) 27.1 60.0

500 27.4⋅(106) 0.3 7.30⋅(10-6) 25.3 60.0

700 26.2⋅(106) 0.3 7.60⋅(10-6) 23.6 60.0

900 24.8⋅(106) 0.3 7.90⋅(10-6) 20.9 55.8

Source: 2004 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Section II, Materials. Part D

3.4.3 Data Analysis

A section of waterwall was instrumented with TCs, and temperature data were collected from
July 7, 2006 to August 29, 2006. About two months of waterwall temperature data were
reviewed and summarized. Chordal (surface/depth pair) TC data were taken at two elevations at
the crown/apex of an instrumented boiler tube. Both grounded and ungrounded TCs were used at
both locations (A, or upper, and B, or lower)—see Figures 3-11 and 3-12. Depth and surface
(button) TC data were also taken from within the web connecting the tubes of the waterwall at
(or adjacent to) A and B. Three of the TCs, which were apparently damaged during panel
installation, were discovered to be nonfunctional, and valid data for the grounded chordal and
button pairs at A could not be obtained. The button TC data at B exhibited very little temperature
variation throughout the test period. The grounded chordal TC pair at B (D2-B/S2-B)
consistently displayed the largest temperature swings that were apparently due to cleaning
events. The two months of data were collected in 12 Excel spreadsheets, and a summary of this
information is provided in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 divides the apparent cleaning events into three categories by magnitude of the overall
temperature excursion at a given TC. The vast majority of the events resulted in temperature
variations of less than 55.56°C (100°F)—about 27.78°C (50°F) was typical (see Figure 3-13).
There were a substantial number of events with temperature excursions between 55.56°C
(100°F) and 111.11°C (200°F) (see Figure 3-14), and a handful of events with temperature
excursions approaching 166.67°C (300°F) (see Figure 3-15). All data were taken at 1-second
intervals (1 Hz).

The temperature data exhibited some interesting aspects of water cleaning events. For instance,
Figure 3-13 shows two temperature drops in succession, a phenomena that accompanied all of the
smaller temperature-swing data. The separation between the temperature drops was about
22 seconds, which is fairly consistent across the data. Scoping 3D heat transfer analysis had shown

3-10
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

that tube thickness-direction heat flow dominates, and that axial conduction along the tube is very
small. That is, the second temperature drop at a given location could not be due to heat being
drawn away to an adjacent area that was being cleaned by the next water cannon pass. The data
suggested that each temperature drop must be due to water cannon impingement. With this in
mind, the smaller temperature drops could have been caused by the TCs being off-center of the
water cannon path such that some amount of spray struck the location from the lower part of one
pass and the upper part of the subsequent pass. Figure 3-13 also shows that both the A and the B
TCs tended to respond simultaneously, although often exhibiting different magnitudes. Because
these TCs were 30.48 cm (12 in) apart and the typical spray impingement area was reported to be
about 94.11 cm (36 in) in diameter, this interpretation of the data was considered reasonable.

Another curious aspect of the smaller temperature excursion data was that they did not display
the expected sharp drop in temperature that normally accompanies a thermal shock (see typical
examples shown in Figures 3-14 and 3-15). The cooling shown in Figure 3-13 is relatively
gradual. This might be due to the presence of the slag on the tubes, an unknown factor. In other
words, the smaller ∆T events may truly be representative and simply reflect the effect (or
protection) of the slag. The larger ∆T events could be due to incidental cleaning of a previously
cleaned tube or to complete and sudden ablation of all slag during water cannon impingement.
On the other hand, the smaller temperature changes could have resulted from different
phenomena associated with variations in combustion and flow within the boiler system.

Note that one last potential complicating factor is that the button depth TC often reads hotter than
the surface TC, even at steady state. The physical basis for this is not clear.

The instrumented test panel was installed in a furnace location that was believed to experience
average conditions where light-to-moderate damage would be incurred due to water cleaning.
However, because the inside of a boiler furnace is so difficult to observe, and the impingement
path and slag depth variation with time were not correlated with the temperature measurements,
it cannot be conclusively determined that any of the recorded data represented a worst-case
condition. Because the total fatigue damage is a function of both stress range and the number of
cycles, it was considered that the larger ΔT events were the most relevant. Hence, the
temperature history shown in Figure 3-15 was investigated further to assess its effects on the
fatigue life of the waterwall tubes.

A cursory analysis of the fluid flow data measured with the second instrumented panel (fitted
with pitot tube) indicated that the water flow rate (and hence, the steam flow rate) decreases with
the onset of water cannon cleaning. This finding is consistent with B&W calculations and
predictions of steam flow decreases resulting from sudden temperature drops due to water
cleaning. Quantification of the fluid flow rate reductions as a function of temperature drop due to
water cleaning was not conducted because further assessment of these data was beyond the scope
of the planned project effort.

3-11
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-11
TC Installation Log Sheet

3-12
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-12
Cross-Sectional Location of Chordal and Button TCs

3-13
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Table 3-3
Summary of TC Data

Excel Start End Span Number of Cleaning Events Comments

Spreadsheet (hours)
0°F ≤ ΔT < 0°F ≤ ΔT < ΔT ≥ 200°F
100°F 200°F
daqv0001.xls 7/7/2006 7/10/2006 79.8 113 0 0 —
1:03:28 PM 8:34:46 PM
daqv0002.xls 710/2006 7/14/2006 88.7 88 4 0 D2-B/S2-B, max ΔT = -176°F,
8:34:47 PM 12:50:20 PM recovery ΔT = +4°F, 2 temp. drops
before recovery
daqv0003.xls 7/14/2006 7/18/2006 88.7 73 21 0 D2-B/S2-B, max ΔT = -178°F,
12:50:21 PM 5:05:53 AM recovery ΔT = +4.5°F, 2 temp. drops
before recovery
daqv0004.xls 7/18/2006 7/21/2006 88.7 117 5 0 D2-B/S2-B, max ΔT = -140°F,
5:05:54 AM 9:21:26 PM recovery ΔT = +2°F, 2 temp. drops
before recovery
daqv0005.xls 7/21/2006 7/25/2006 88.7 121 3 0 D2-B/S2-B, max ΔT = -140°F,
9:21:27 PM 1:37:00 PM recovery ΔT = +27.5°F, 2 temp.
drops before recovery
daqv0006.xls 7/25/2006 7/29/2006 88.7 47 0 0 22 heating events without a
1:37:01 PM 5:52:33 AM preceding temperature drop

daqv0007.xls 7/29/2006 8/1/2006 88.7 118 0 0 —

5:52:34 AM 10:08:06 PM
daqv0008.xls 8/1/2006 8/2/2006 20.5 30 0 0 —
10:08:07 PM 6:47:58 PM
daqv0009.xls 8/2/2006 8/9/2006 159.7 210 0 0 —
6:47:59 PM 9:40:07 AM
daqv0010.xls 8/9/2006 8/16/2006 177.4 222 18 2 D2-B/S2-B, max ΔT = -240°F,
9:40:08 AM 8:35:06 PM recovery ΔT = +13°F, single drop
before recovery

3-14
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Table 3-3 (continued)

Summary of TC Data

Excel Start End Span Number of Cleaning Events Comments

Spreadsheet (hours)
0°F ≤ ΔT < 0°F ≤ ΔT < ΔT ≥ 200°F
100°F 200°F
daqv0011.xls 8/16/2006 8/24/2006 177.4 248 18 2 D2-B/S2-B, max ΔT = -269°F,
8:35:07 PM 7:30:04 AM recovery ΔT = +14°F, single drop
before recovery
daqv0012.xls 8/24/2006 8/29/2006 118.3 159 10 5 D2-B/S2-B, max ΔT = -265°F,
7:30:05 AM 6:46:52 AM recovery ΔT = +20°F, single drop
before recovery
Totals 1265.3 1546 79 9 53 days of data, average of 31
cleaning events per day

°F = (°C x 9/5) + 32

3-15
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-13
Typical Small-ΔT Event Temperature History—ΔT = 26.11°C (47°F)

3-16
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-14
Typical Medium-ΔT Event Temperature History—ΔT = 103.89°C (187°F)

3-17
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-15
Typical Large-ΔT Event Temperature History—For Analysis—ΔT = 149.44°C (269°F)

3.4.4 Thermal Finite Element Analysis

The thermal analysis of the water cannon cleaning event (as identified in Figure 3-15) required
back-calculating the thermal boundary conditions that led to the measured temperature histories.
In this case, the required inputs (aside from the material properties already presented) were the
furnace gas temperature, the emissivity of the waterwall (assumed constant), the heat transfer
coefficient, and fluid temperature inside the waterwall tubes.

Additionally, inspection of the TC data (see Figure 3-15) showed that the button TCs in the web
showed almost no temperature response to the assumed cleaning event. It was assumed that this
was due, at least in part, to slag still remaining on the web regions. This region was therefore
modeled with a thermal resistance to the hot gas temperature instead of a radiation boundary
condition like the rest of the tube.

It was also assumed that the time identified as zero in Figure 3-15 was a steady-state condition.
The temperature profile through the wall of the tube would then be very nearly linear, and
because two temperatures were known, the temperatures at all points through the thickness were
known. However, if the baseline TC positions (see Figure 3-11) were used with the measured
temperatures, the linearly extrapolated inside surface temperature would be predicted to be much

3-18
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

less than the recorded fluid temperature (see Figure 3-16). An assumption of a ±0.25 mm
(0.010 in.) variation in both the surface and depth TC locations brought the possible tube ID
temperature closer to the recorded fluid temperature (see Figure 3-17).

Because the precise position of the TCs was not known, the nominal positions were assumed. As
Figure 3-16 shows, this required a fluid temperature about 17°C (30°F) lower than the measured
fluid temperature to match the steady-state tube TC measurements (again assuming nominal TC
positions). Although the fluid TC measurement was likely the most reliable, this approach led to
somewhat higher calculated thermal stresses.

Figure 3-16
Large ΔT Initial Steady-State Temperature Distribution Assuming Nominal TC Positions

3-19
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-17
Large ΔT Initial Steady-State Temperature Distributions for Range of TC Positions

3.4.4.1 Radiation Analysis

The fire side of the tube had a radiation boundary condition applied to the surface. The finite
element program used for the analysis, ABAQUS, has the ability to calculate viewfactors for the
tube surfaces. Viewfactors can be important because the crown of the tube will be heated almost
exclusively by the gas, but the web region will be shielded to some extent from the hot gas and
will instead exchange heat with the web and neighboring tube. This approach required that every
node be thermally coupled to every other node through the defined radiation heat transfer and
would be computationally intensive for large models. Because the viewfactors are 2D in nature, a
simple slice of the tubes and webs could be used to calculate the viewfactors, and then these
could be incorporated into a simpler radiation model offered by ABAQUS with little loss of
accuracy and with substantial gain in solution speed.

The model used to determine the viewfactors for the tubes and webs is shown in Figure 3-18—
note that the symmetry of the tube wall was used in the model (though not to the maximum
extent possible for radiation modeling convenience). The calculated viewfactors are given in
Figure 3-19. These results were then used with the simpler radiation model. The simpler model
required the viewfactor to be input to establish a specified boundary condition (BC), such as a

3-20
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

convection BC, rather than a surface interaction that links all parts of the model together. A
function based on Figure 3-19 was then used to assign viewfactors for each surface element of
the tube, which scaled the nominal emissivity of 0.7 down accordingly as the web region was
approached.

Figure 3-18
Thermal Analysis Model and BCs

3-21
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-19
Total Viewfactor to Gas as a Function of Tube Position

3.4.4.2 2D Benchmark

The 2D model depicted in Figure 3-18 (without the gas elements) was used with the simplified
radiation model to determine the BCs that led to the measured temperature histories, assuming
nominal TC positions. A moving film coefficient (implemented with the ABAQUS user
subroutine FILM) representing the water cannon impingement spot was used with the 2D cross-
sectional model. Another user subroutine (UFIELD) was used to capture the different starting
and ending steady state conditions. An initial heat loss was applied (through the FILM
subroutine) to the tubes—once the moving film coefficient had passed, a field variable value was
switched, and the heat loss was removed. This resulted in the higher temperature ending steady-
state condition shown in Figure 3-15. A small heat loss was also assumed on the backside of the
tube to represent insulation. As mentioned previously, the web surface and a small portion of the
adjacent tubes were assumed to be covered with slag at all times. For the analysis, this meant that
this region did not have the water cannon coefficient or the radiation BC applied to it. Instead, a
resistance (to the gas temperature) was modeled.

3-22
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

The steady-state conditions assumed in the analysis were as follows:

• Tube ID fluid temperature: 645°F
• Tube ID heat transfer coefficient: 33,000 Btu/hr⋅ft2°F
• Gas temperature: 2585°F
• Nominal tube emissivity: 0.70
• Web heat transfer coefficient: 25 Btu/hr⋅ft2°F
• Initial fired side tube surface heat loss: 3600 Btu/hr⋅ft2
• Tube backside fluid temperature: 100°F
• Tube backside heat transfer coefficient: 0.1 Btu/hr⋅ft2°F

It should be noted that the tube ID heat transfer coefficient was likely larger than a typical
boiling film coefficient. However, the intent of the coefficient in this case was simply to give the
best match to the tube TC data when combined with the assumed fluid temperature. An approach
where a boiling coefficient was used with the measured fluid temperature and where the tube TC
positions were iterated could also have been employed.

Once the nominal conditions were determined from the steady-state data, the film coefficient
distribution and peak magnitude were iterated until the transient TC history was matched as
closely as possible at all four cross-sectional locations. A travel speed of 1.016 m/s (40 in/s) was
assumed in the analysis. The water cannon manufacturer estimated the typical water cannon
lateral travel speed to be about 76.2 m/m (250 ft/m). However, a lower value was postulated here
in order to match the measured severity of the thermal event. The assumed impingement spot
diameter was 36 inches, based on the water cannon manufacturer’s input. The film coefficient
distribution (see Figure 3-20) within the spot was assumed to be of the form:

⎡ ⎛ r ⎞
2
⎤
h(r ) = hmax ⎢1 − (1 − η )⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ rcannon ⎠ ⎥⎦

Where η is the fraction of hmax present at the outermost (radial) position of the spot, and r is the
radial distance from any point in the model to the current center of the traveling film coefficient.
Only points found to lie within the current spot have a film coefficient applied. The water
cannon/transient parameters were then:
• Maximum heat transfer coefficient: 3800 Btu/hr⋅ft2°F
• Distribution factor (η): 0.25
• Water cannon travel speed: 200 ft/min
• Water cannon spot radius: 18 in.

3-23
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-20
Assumed Water Cannon Impingement Heat Transfer Coefficient Distribution

The resulting predicted temperature histories are shown in Figure 3-21 and Figure 3-22. As
Figure 3-21 shows, good agreement was obtained for the chordal TC locations, and reasonable
agreement was obtained for the button or web locations. Some of the uncertainties associated
with the web region were the amount of slag present, the quality of the connection through the
thickness of the web between the tube and the web itself, and the position of the surface TC
within its ceramic sleeve. It should be noted that an attempt was not made to model the ceramic
sleeve because that is a 3D effect that would be grossly overestimated in the current 2D analysis.
It should also be noted that the water cannon spray was known to impinge upon the wall at
significantly varying angles. This situation would make the impingement region somewhat
elliptical in shape rather than circular and would exhibit continuously changing dimensions as
the cannon spray traversed the tube wall. This condition would, in turn, affect the intensity of
water spray impingement into the web region of the tubes, likely resulting in nonuniform heat
transfer even across a single tube. The FEA model could eventually be refined to account for
these changing conditions through separate follow-on work, if desired.

3-24
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-21
2D Predicted Temperature Histories Comparison with TC Data (Refer to Figure 3-15)

3-25
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-22
Temperature Contours for 2D Benchmark

3-26
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-23
Temperature Contours for 2D Benchmark (Figure 3-22)—Detail

3.4.4.3 Mesh Refinement Verification

To make the 3D model tractable, the coarsest cross-sectional discretization that still gives
meaningful results is required. To this end, a mesh refinement study was conducted. The mesh
shown in Figure 3-19 was used as a starting point (without the gas elements), and then the mesh
density was progressively reduced while keeping the resulting temperature histories at each of
the four TC locations essentially the same. The stress histories were also run for this model
(generalized plane strain assumed) to ensure that the mesh was structurally converged as well.
Pressure was neglected for these runs, and only temperature effects were included. The least
refined mesh determined that still gave a converged temperature and stress solution is shown in
Figure 3-23. This cross-sectional mesh was used in the 2D benchmark of the Section 3.4.4.2 and
in all subsequent analyses, including 3D analysis. Both temperature and stress histories and
distributions are presented for refinement verification in Figure 3-24 through Figure 3-27. All
results were based at the tube crown, where the largest stresses occurred.

3-27
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-24
Least-Refined Converged Mesh Used for Subsequent Analysis

Figure 3-25
Mesh Refinement Temperature History Results

3-28
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-26
Stress History Results for Mesh Refinement Check

3-29
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-27
Tube Crown Through-Wall Temperature Distribution Comparison at 16 Seconds

3-30
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

3.4.4.4 3D Model and Analysis

The basic cross-sectional mesh pattern shown in Figure 3-23 was repeated and extruded to create
the 3D mesh shown in Figure 3-28. The aspect ratio (in-plane to out-of-plane) for the elements
was generally large but was matched to the expected thermal gradients and was considered
appropriate for this analysis. Overall, the model was a 1.22-m (4-ft) high by 1.89-m (6-ft) wide
section of the tubewall. The cross-sectional mesh was the same for all 24 tubes, and the mesh
was graded in the height direction. The moving film coefficient subroutine was set up such that
the lower face of the finite element (FE) model was a symmetry plane—that is, half of the
0.91-m (3-ft) diameter impingement spot that moves through the model domain. It is speculated
that this representation of impingement occurring directly opposite a buckstay in the boiler
system may have resulted in somewhat higher calculated stresses than those obtained with
impingement midway between buckstays.

The 3D model was run with the same parameters determined from the 2D benchmark of Section
3.4.4.2. The results of the 3D run are presented in Figure 3-29 along with the TC data and the 2D
results. The calculated 3D results were taken from the center of the tubewall model on the
symmetry plane. As Figure 3-29 shows, the 3D results agree closely with the 2D results and the
measured data using the parameters of Section 3.4.4.2. Temperature contour plots are given for
several times in Figure 3-30, and the field variable contours are given in Figure 3-31. The field
variable allowed for the different starting and ending steady-state conditions (see the first and
last contours of Figure 3-30) and physically represented a reduced resistance to warming by the
gas for the tubes after the water cannon stream had passed.

3-31
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-28
Tube Crown Through-Wall Stress Distribution Comparison at 16 Seconds

3-32
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-29
3D Waterwall FE Model

3-33
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-30
Comparison Between 2D and 3D Thermal FEA Results Versus Recorded Data

3-34
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-31
Temperature Contours for 3D Thermal Analysis

3-35
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-32
Comparison Between 2D and 3D Thermal FEA Results Versus Recorded Data (Figure 3-30)—
Detail

3-36
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-33
Field Variable Contours for 3D Analysis Showing Water Cannon Movement

3-37
12722400
Project Accomplishments

3.4.5 Structural Finite Element Analysis

The 3D FE model of Figure 3-28 was used in combination with the temperature histories of
Section 3.4.4 to generate thermal/mechanical stresses for fatigue evaluation. A design pressure of
20,339.53 kPa (2950 psig) was assumed inside the tubes (with no external pressure). Blowoff
pressure was applied to the end of the tubes to account for the waterwall being a closed system.
The lower face of the tubes were restrained to have zero displacement in the vertical direction,
and the nodes of the upper face were all assigned to have the same (but not zero) vertical
displacement. The nodes on the centerlines of both the top and bottom surfaces were additionally
required to have the same out-of-plane displacement. This condition was established to model
free axial thermal growth with periodic lateral support (that is, by buckstays). The BCs are
summarized in Figure 3-32.

The stress results are shown in Figures 3-33 and 3-34, which also present 2D results from the
simplified benchmark model (see Figure 3-23). Although a more rigorous 2D model would
include more tubes, the 2D model was seen to give reasonable results compared to the 3D
analysis. As Figure 3-34 shows, part of the discrepancy in the peak stress results was due to the
somewhat larger temperature drop predicted in the 3D analysis. Contour plots of the von Mises
Stress are given in Figure 3-35. These results were used in the fatigue analysis in Section 3.4.6.

3-38
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-34
Structural BCs

3-39
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-35
Predicted Stress History for Water Cannon Cleaning Event

3-40
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-36
2D Versus 3D Component Stress and Temperature History Comparisons

3-41
12722400
Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-37
3D Analysis von Mises Stress Contours

3-42
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

Figure 3-38
Predicted Stress History for Water Cannon Cleaning Event (Figure 3-35)—Detail

3.4.6 Fatigue Analysis

The 3D analysis stress histories are given in Figure 3-34. Because the tube crown radial and
shear stresses were all zero throughout the transient, S11 and S33 (along with zero) were also the
principal stresses. The largest principal stress difference range was needed for the fatigue
assessment. From Figure 3-34:
• Max. stress = 60,716 psi
• Min. stress = -25,809 psi
• Max. range = 60,716 psi - (-25,809 psi) = 86,525 psi
• Max. alternating stress = 43.3 ksi
• Mean stress = (60,716 psi + (-25,809 psi))/2 = 17.5 ksi

The yield strength at 341.11°C (646°F)—approximate metal temperature—was interpolated from

Table 3-2: 166,163.65 kpa (24.1 ksi). Note that the water cannon cleaning event is not a fully
reversed event itself, and there are steady-state pressure and thermal stresses as well. However,
because the predicted alternating stress exceeded the yield strength, the effective mean stress was
taken to be zero. The allowed number of cycles (fatigue life) for an alternating stress of
298,542.99 kPa (43.3 ksi) at a temperature of about 421.11°C (790°F) (maximum surface
temperature) was determined from a fatigue design curve of ASME Section III (former Code
Case 1331-4) for carbon and low alloy steels, and results follow.

Allowed Cycles = 2700

3-43
12722400
Project Accomplishments

This result could be interpreted to mean that SA213 T2 tubes, which only experience repeated
temperature drops approaching 166.67°C (300ºF) due to water cleaning, have the potential for
fatigue cracking at cycle counts exceeding 2700. The fatigue analysis methods that were
employed cannot provide additional details about crack initiation or travel rates.

If later-life shocks are not too severe, it has been suggested that the crack growth rate could slow
at a certain depth and thus form a protective cracked layer on the outside tube surface.
Potentially, models that include a cracked geometry might shed light on this aspect.

It should be remembered that the calculations were based on an observed worst case temperature
drop approaching 166.67°C (300ºF), as indicated in the summary of cleaning events shown in
Table 3-3. However, use of the worst case temperature drop in this example demonstrates how
the 3D FEA model developed in this project can be effectively used to predict (or to explain)
limited fatigue life at critical locations in the panel, where control of water cleaning is more
difficult, or where large temperature drops inexplicably occur during water cleaning. With
further effort, which is beyond the scope of this project, damage contribution of both lesser
thermal shocks due to water cleaning and of normal heating and cooling cycles within the boiler
system could be incorporated in the determination of fatigue life. Other aspects, such as
cumulative creep damage in the waterwall panel, could also be accounted in the analysis.

It should also be clearly understood that this calculation of fatigue life was based on the
properties of SA213 T2, a low alloy steel tube composition (1/2 Cr–1/2 Mo) which has been
shown in testing [1] and in practice to be more durable in thermal fatigue than plain carbon steel
tubing, depending on boiler operating conditions and metal temperature. Because the design S-N
curve used in this analysis was equally applicable to both carbon steel and low alloy steel, the
analytical method would not predict differences in fatigue life between T2 and carbon steel.

This analysis was linear elastic. It was assumed that large-scale plasticity did not occur, and
surface strains were nearly proportional to stress. This was considered reasonable for this thermal
shock case.

3.5 Project Summary with Conclusions and Recommendations

A 5-task, 24-month project, initiated in January 2006, was conducted to investigate the effects of
water cannon cleaning on the fatigue life of boiler tubes. Under task 1 of the project (Survey of
Water Cannon Field Experience), a survey questionnaire and cover letter were developed at
B&W and forwarded (along with a B&W contact list) to EPRI, and EPRI distributed them to
users of water cleaning equipment throughout the North American power generation industry.
Responses to the survey were reviewed and assessed by an independent consultant retained by
EPRI, and the results of the survey will be issued separately by EPRI as an addendum to this
report. Under task 2 of the project (test panel fabrication and installation), B&W fabricated two
instrumented test panels, one to measure temperature and one to measure fluid flow. During a
planned outage at Alabama Power Company’s Miller Unit 1 in January and February of 2006,
these instrumented test panels were installed in a waterwall under task 2 to measure the
temperature changes and fluid flow (steam) changes that occur when conducting water cannon

3-44
12722400
 Project Accomplishments

cleaning operations. After Miller Unit 1 returned to service on February 27, 2006, the process of
data gathering was initiated under task 3 of the project (recording field temperature data) and
was completed in August 2006. Under task 4 of the project (FEA modeling and fatigue life
prediction), a thermal fatigue analysis of boiler waterwall tubes subjected to water cannon
cleaning was conducted, based on the experimental temperature data. Both 2D and 3D FEA
models were built and used to determine tube fatigue life based on a measured worst-case
temperature drop of 166.67°C (300ºF) due to water cleaning, and the allowed number of cycles
for SA213 T2 tubing was calculated to be 2700. This could be interpreted to mean that only
tubes experiencing repeated temperature drops approaching 166.67°C (300ºF) due to water
cleaning have the potential for fatigue cracking at cycle counts exceeding 2700.

It should be emphasized that the calculations were based on an observed worst-case temperature
drop approaching 166.67°C (300ºF), as indicated in the summary of cleaning events shown in
Table 3.3.

However, use of the worst-case temperature drop in this example demonstrates how the 3D FEA
model developed in this project can be effectively used to predict (or to explain) limited fatigue
life at critical locations in the panel where controlled water cleaning is more difficult or where
large temperature drops inexplicably occur.

Finally, it should be recognized that some uncertainties exist in the data and FE analysis, and
these should be investigated further. It is recommended that the FE methods and models
developed and presented here be extended and refined to look at the effect of slag and water
cannon pass overlap. Specifically, the FEA provides a unique opportunity to further evaluate the
data to determine whether the wide range in measured thermal event severities is based on the
position of the TCs relative to the water cannon spot center, or whether the data truly represent
the actual different thermal events. The proximity of the tube wall structural supports (such as
buckstays) on the predicted stress distributions should also be investigated.

It is anticipated that the FEA models developed in this project, if further extended and refined,
could eventually be used to better understand and to more strategically employ water cleaning
techniques and thereby minimize damage to waterwalls from thermal fatigue. Such techniques
would likely include an optimized selection and implementation of water cleaning frequency,
duration, and travel speeds. Using the FEA models as predictive tools, the projected service lives
of water cleaned panels could be better characterized and more accurately determined.

3-45
12722400
12722400
4
REFERENCES

1. Water Blowing of Fireside Deposits in Coal-Fired Utility Boilers. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
1986. CS-4914.
2. Demonstration of Clyde Bergmann Water Cannons at Alabama Power Company’s Plant
Miller Unit 1. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1011120.
3. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Section II, Materials, Part D – Properties. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, 2004.

4-1
12722400
12722400
A
CONVERSION TABLE

English Unit SI Conversion

1 Btu 1055 joules

°F (°C x 9/5) + 32

1 ft2 929 cm2

1 psi 6.89 kP

1 ksi 6.894757 MN/m2 (MPa)

1 Btu/(lbm °F) 1 kcal/(kg °C)

1 lb/ft3 16.018 kg/m3

A-1
12722400
12722400
12722400
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with major
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted with the locations in Palo Alto, California; Charlotte, North Carolina; and
specific understanding and requirement that responsibility for ensur- Knoxville, Tennessee, was established in 1973 as an independent,
ing full compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export laws nonprofit center for public interest energy and environmental
and regulations is being undertaken by you and your company. This research. EPRI brings together members, participants, the Institute’s
includes an obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access scientists and engineers, and other leading experts to work
hereunder who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is collaboratively on solutions to the challenges of electric power. These
permitted access under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and solutions span nearly every area of electricity generation, delivery,
regulations. In the event you are uncertain whether you or your com- and use, including health, safety, and environment. EPRI’s members
pany may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you represent over 90% of the electricity generated in the United States.
acknowledge that it is your obligation to consult with your company’s International participation represents nearly 15% of EPRI’s total
legal counsel to determine whether this access is lawful. Although research, development, and demonstration program.
EPRI may make available on a case-by-case basis an informal as-
Together...Shaping the Future of Electricity
sessment of the applicable U.S. export classification for specific EPRI
Intellectual Property, you and your company acknowledge that this
assessment is solely for informational purposes and not for reliance
purposes. You and your company acknowledge that it is still the ob-
ligation of you and your company to make your own assessment
of the applicable U.S. export classification and ensure compliance
accordingly. You and your company understand and acknowledge
your obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the appropriate
authorities regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellectual Prop-
erty hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U.S. or foreign
export laws or regulations.

Programs:
Fossil Materials and Repair

© 2007 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power
Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER...SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are
registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America

1014185

Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
12722400