Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
and CHECMATE
computer codes for predicting FAC wear rates in piping containing single- and two-phase flow.
These codes were developed specifically to assist the utility industry in planning and
implementing inspection programs to prevent FAC failures. The codes could also be used to
evaluate the effect of changes in piping design or operating conditions on FAC wear rates.
These codes predict the rate of FAC on a component-by-component basis to assist in prioritizing
EPRI Licensed Material
Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines
1-6
inspections to find damage long before a failure might occur. The prioritization of inspections is
key to control of FAC as often plants have thousands of possibly susceptible components, and it
is not practical to inspect them all.
EPRI has continued to develop technology to help utilities control FAC, and in December 1993
released the CHECWORKS (Chexal-Horowitz Engineering Corrosion WORKStation) code
(5)
.
In summary, CHECWORKS integrated and updated the capability of the previous codes, and
was written to take full advantage of the recent advances in computer technology. Additionally,
capability was added to help utilities manage related plant data and to automate many of the
analysis and reporting tasks conducted during an inspection outage.
The rupture of the feedwater line at the Pleasant Prairie fossil plant in 1995 led to many fossil
plant owners expanding and refining their FAC inspection programs. In reaction to this EPRI
developed CHECUP
(6)
in 1996, to rank the relative rate of wall loss due to FAC at specific
piping locations in fossil and co-generation power plants and industrial steam plants. The use of
CHECUP is described in Section 5 and increases the confidence of plant owners and operators
that the most damaged components will be identified, inspected, and repaired or replaced long
before a rupture might occur. CHECUP also helps manage and interpret associated inspection
data.
In parallel with those efforts over the last 10 years the EPRI fossil plant cycle chemistry program
has focused on optimizing the feedwater treatments to minimize single-phase FAC
(7-9)
. Particular
emphasis has been given to reducing the level of iron-based feedwater corrosion products, which
are the key on-line indicator of FAC. The fossil plant has more flexibility than a nuclear plant to
change the oxidizing-reducing potential in the feedwater, and major efforts have been directed
along these lines. Recently three types of feedwater treatment have been delineated
(7)
: classic
AVT(R) (with ammonia and a reducing agent), AVT(O) (with only ammonia addition), and OT
(with ammonia and oxygen additions). In a conventional fossil plant, it is only possible to
address single-phase FAC by cycle chemistry optimization. Two-phase FAC (drain lines,
deaerator and shellside of heaters) must be addressed by materials solutions (increasing
chromium) as discussed in later sections.
The FAC mechanisms which occur in HRSGs have been fully described in EPRIs HTF
Manual.
(11)
As in conventional plants single-phase FAC can be addressed by ensuring that the
feedwater operates on AVT(O) or OT. Two-phase FAC can however be addressed chemically in
an HRSG by increasing the LP evaporator pH if not restricted by the HRSG design. The
guideline for the cycle chemistry of HRSGs
(12)
was developed to address both single and two-
phase FAC. At this time there is not a predictive capability for HRSGs equivalent to
CHECWORKS or CHECUP.
This current Guideline represents a comprehensive approach which combines the key areas for
FAC control: prediction, inspection, and cycle chemistry.
EPRI Licensed Material
Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines
1-7
This Guideline describes the organization and activities necessary to implement a successful
FAC program specific to conventional fossil and HRSG power plants and industrial steam plants.
Necessary elements of an effective FAC program are identified, and recommendations for
implementation are made. The reader should first turn to Section 3, which provides an overview
of the necessary activities in the form of road maps (Section 3.1 for conventional fossil plants,
and Section 3.2 for HRSGs). The detailed steps are described in the subsequent sections. This
document has been written to be of use to all fossil power plants and industrial steam plants
including combined cycle/HRSG plants.
The Guideline is directed at wall thinning caused by FAC in large-bore piping and in small-bore
tubing, such as economizer inlet header tubing and HRSG tubing. This document does not cover
other thinning mechanisms, such as cavitation, microbiologically-influenced corrosion (MIC),
and erosive wear. It is planned that this document will be periodically updated to reflect the
advances made in FAC control; as such this is the first revision of the 1997 Fossil Plant
Guidelines for FAC.
(13)
1.3 Mechanism of FAC in Fossil Plants.
The phenomenon of FAC is well understood
(10)
. It is a process whereby the normally protective
magnetite (Fe
3
O
4
) layer on carbon steel dissolves in a stream of flowing water (single-phase) or
wet steam (two-phase). This process reduces or eliminates the protective oxide (magnetite) layer
and leads to a rapid removal of the base material until, in the worst cases, the pipe or tube bursts.
The FAC process can become rapid: wall thinning rates as high as 0.120 inch/yr (3 mm/yr) have
occurred. In fossil and HRSG plants the rate of metal loss depends on a complex interplay of
many parameters including the feedwater chemistry, the material composition, the other
materials in the feedwater systems, and the fluid hydrodynamics. Section 2 provides an
overview of the key features involved and includes a wide range of single-phase and two-phase
examples from conventional and combined cycle HRSG plants. The FAC mechanism is
discussed in detail and starts with the basic feedwater chemistries, and then provides a
description of the oxides which form under different oxidizing-reducing potentials (redox or
ORP). This leads finally to how the hydrodynamic factors influence FAC.
1.4 Corporate FAC Program Overview
It is important that a comprehensive set of procedures (or instructions) be developed to define the
overall FAC program, identify responsibilities, and control how various tasks are performed. For
utilities with multiple plants, it is recommended that the procedures (or instructions) be as
common to all plants as is practical. These procedures (or instructions) should be approved plant
documents that are updated as necessary to reflect plant and industry requirements.
Clearly a corporate FAC program needs to include personnel from various groups in the plant
(mechanical maintenance, chemists, technical, and operations) and in head office/research (NDE,
metallurgists, feedwater specialists, piping engineers). An overall corporate commitment is
essential to an effective FAC program.
EPRI Licensed Material
Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines
1-8
The most successful way of ensuring full participation of the various groups is to develop a
corporate philosophy document signed by the upper management, which defines the overall
program and responsibilities. Such a document should include, as a minimum, the following
elements:
A corporate commitment to monitor and control FAC.
The means to provide adequate financial resources to ensure that all tasks are properly
completed.
The overall authority and task responsibilities are clearly defined, and that the assigned
personnel have adequate time to complete the work.
Identification of the position that has overall responsibility for the FAC program at each
plant.
Communication requirements between the lead position and other departments that have
responsibility for performing support tasks. Formalized sharing of data and information is
essential.
Ensuring that assigned personnel are properly qualified and trained for their area of technical
responsibility and that adequately trained, backup personnel are available.
Identification of the tasks to be performed (including implementing procedures) and
associated responsibilities.
Minimizing personnel turnover on the program, and providing sufficient transition when
turnover does occur to ensure that plant and industry experience is not lost.
Ensuring that FAC experiences at other plants are continuously monitored and evaluated.
Ensuring that appropriate quality controls are applied. This should include preparing and
documenting procedures for tasks to be performed, properly documenting work, and
providing for periodic independent reviews of all phases of the FAC program.
Developing a longterm plan and the identification of longterm goals and strategies for
reducing high FAC wear rates.
A method for evaluating plant performance against longterm goals.
There may be several thousand piping components in a given fossil power plant or combined
cycle plant that are susceptible to FAC damage. Without an accurate FAC analysis of the plant,
inspection drawings, and a piping database that includes inspection and replacement histories,
the only way to prevent leaks and ruptures is to inspect each susceptible component during each
outage. This would be a very costly inspection program.
A primary objective of the overall FAC program is to identify the most susceptible components,
thereby reducing the number of inspections (the size of this sample being a strong function of
both the plant susceptibility and the accuracy of the plant model and analysis method used). This
limited sample should be chosen to select the components with the greatest susceptibility to
FAC. Some plants have used a simplified approach, often involving rating factors for this
susceptibility analysis.
EPRI Licensed Material
Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines
1-9
Plants that do not use a systematic, analytically based approach to FAC cannot be confident that
all highly susceptible components have been identified and are being monitored to prevent
leakage or rupture. Programs that are based purely on engineering judgment will require
inspection of an unnecessarily large number of inspection locations during each major outage
for piping and tubing systems alone to develop a high level of confidence in the adequacy of the
program. Experience has shown that until an adequate analysis of all susceptible systems has
been completed, plant personnel cannot be confident that the FAC program is adequate to
prevent a consequential failure.
For each susceptible segment, an analytical method should be used to predict the FAC wear rate,
and the estimated time until it must be reinspected, repaired, or replaced. The analytical model
can also be utilized for design studies. These studies are valuable for cost benefit evaluations
such as water chemistry changes, materials changes, and design changes, considering various
plant constraints for existing and new designs. The rankings of component types can be used as
relative rankings to assist in planning and carrying out the initial inspection program of a plant or
system.
Review and incorporation of industry experience provides a valuable supplement to plant
analysis and associated inspections. Utilities have found the following benefits from sharing
plant experiences:
Identifying generic plant problem areas where additional inspections may be warranted.
Understanding differences in similar types of components (e.g., FAC wear rates of
downstream piping are more severe when control valves made by certain manufacturers are
used).
Understanding the FAC consequences of using systems off-design (e.g., running bypass lines
full time).
Sharing information on costs, materials, qualified suppliers, repair or replacement techniques,
inspection techniques, new equipment, etc.
EPRI sponsors periodic FAC symposiums to discuss new technologies and to provide an open
forum for utility and industrial steam plant personnel to share FAC related experiences.
Good NDE inspections (Section 5) are the foundation of an effective FAC program. Wall
thickness measurements will establish the extent of wear in a given component, provide data to
help evaluate FAC trends, and provide information to refine the predictive model, if the
predictive model includes this feature. Thorough inspections are the key to fulfilling these needs.
Thorough inspection of a few components is much more beneficial to an FAC program than a
cursory inspection of a large number of components. One practice particularly not recommended
is recording only the minimum thicknesses ascertained by UT scanning of large-bore
components. Rather, a systematic method of collecting data is recommended. This will help to
increase repeatability and allow for the trending of results. Complete inspections may require
material sampling.
EPRI Licensed Material
Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines
1-10
Cycle chemistry optimization (Section 6) will ensure that FAC is minimized depending on the
type of feedwater system (mixed-metallurgy or all-ferrous) and plant (conventional or combined
cycle).
1.5 How Good is My FAC Program?
Section 1.4 provided an overview of the minimum features of an adequate FAC corporate
program. This is initiated with a Corporate Mandate signed by the VP/Director of
Operations/Plant Manager. It is activated by on-going cycle chemistry optimization, prediction
of damage sites, and repair activities. However, this is often not good enough. Following a major
FAC trauma in the world, corporate managers of conventional and HRSG plants ask their staff:
Is our FAC program adequate?
EPRI has developed a Benchmarking Process (Appendix A) for conventional plants to provide
the answer. This process ranks the in-house FAC program from World Class to Below
Average, and takes into account whether the plant has all-ferrous or mixed-metallurgy
feedwater systems. To achieve Very Good or World Class status, an organization must be
a) using a predictive tool to identify susceptible locations, and b) cognizant that feedwater
chemistry in each plant needs to be optimized to minimize feedwater corrosion products.
For HRSGs, EPRI has developed a Benchmarking Process to assess overall HRSG performance.
Appendix B provides this Benchmarking Process and the reader should note that Factors B, D, E
and F address FAC.
1.6 Summary
In summary, the mechanism of FAC in fossil plants and combined cycle/HRSG plants is well
understood. Unlike nuclear plants, there are a number of variables which can affect the FAC
process and which can be changed or controlled to affect the FAC rate. The main ones are the
feedwater metallurgy and the feedwater chemistry. It should be clearly understood that the cycle
chemistry can be optimized to minimize single-phase FAC in conventional fossil plants, and both
single-phase and two-phase FAC in HRSG plants. This guideline brings together all the factors
for fossil and HRSG plants into a comprehensive approach, and describes the organization and
activities necessary to implement a successful FAC program specific to fossil and HRSG plants,
and industrial steam plants. It is believed that the implementation of these procedures will prove
to be a cost effective method of increasing personnel safety and plant availability. These
procedures also have the potential to reduce forced outages and thus increase the capacity factor,
while reducing the cost of plant operations and maintenance. The implementation of all the
activities found in this document will greatly reduce the probability of a consequential leak or a
rupture occurring.
EPRI Licensed Material
Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines
1-11
The establishment and implementation of a longterm strategy is essential to the success of a plant
FAC program. This strategy should focus on reducing FAC wear rates, focusing inspections on
the most susceptible locations, and continually checking that the cycle chemistry is optimized for
minimum FAC. Monitoring of components is crucial to preventing failures. However, without a
concerted effort to reduce FAC wear rates, the number of inspections necessary will increase as
the operating hours increase, due to increased wear. In addition, even with selective repair and
replacement, the probability of experiencing a consequential leak or rupture may increase as
operating hours increase without optimizing the cycle chemistry.
The guideline is only directed at wall thinning caused by FAC in large-bore piping and small
bore tubing. This document does not cover other thinning mechanisms, such as cavitation,
microbiologically-influenced corrosion (MIC), and erosive wear.
The reader should first turn to Section 3, which provides the necessary overview of all the
activities needed in a successful FAC program in the form of road maps. The detailed steps are
described in the subsequent chapters. The FAC mechanisms are described in Section 2 together
with numerous examples.
1.7 References
1. Proceedings: Seventh International Conference on Cycle Chemistry in Fossil Plants, EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: January 2004. 1009194.
2. Proceedings: Sixth International Conference on Cycle Chemistry in Fossil Plants, EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: April 2003. 1001363.
3. Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Cycle Chemistry in Fossil Plants, EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: November 1997. TR-108459.
4. R. B. Dooley and J. A. Mathews, The Current State of Cycle Chemistry for Fossil Plants,
Fifth International Conference on Fossil Plant Cycle Chemistry. In Reference 3.
5. CHECWORKS Computer Program Users Guide, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: August 1994. TR-
103496.
6. CHECWORKS Fossil Plant Application - CHECUP Code, Version 1.0 User Guide,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1998. TR-103198-P5.
7. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: All-Volatile Treatment, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
November 2002. 1004187.
8. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Phosphate Continuum and Caustic
Treatment, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: January 2004. 1004188.
EPRI Licensed Material
Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines
1-12
9. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Oxygenated Treatment, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
2005. 1004925.
10. Flow Accelerated Corrosion in Power Plants, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: July 1998.
TR-106611-R1.
11. Heat Recovery Steam Generator Tube Failure Manual, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: November
2002. 1004503.
12. a) Interim Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Combined Cycle HRSGs, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
November 1998. TR-110051.
b) The first revision of this guideline will be published at the end of 2005 as: EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA. 1010438.
13. Guidelines for Controlling FAC in Fossil Plants, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: November 1997.
TR-108859.
EPRI Licensed Material
2-1
2
FAC MECHANISM AND EXAMPLES IN
CONVENTIONAL AND COMBINED CYCLE PLANTS
The phenomenon of FAC is well understood.
(1)
It is a process whereby the normally protective
magnetite (Fe
3
O
4
) layer on carbon steel dissolves in a stream of flowing water (single-phase) or
wet steam (two-phase). This process reduces or eliminates the oxide layer and leads to a rapid
removal of the base material until, in the worst cases, the pipe or tube bursts. The FAC process
can become rapid: wall thinning rates as high as 0.120 inch/yr (3 mm/yr) have occurred. The rate
of metal loss depends on a complex interplay of many parameters including the feedwater
chemistry, the material composition, the other materials in the feedwater systems, and the fluid
hydrodynamics. This section provides discussion on the FAC mechanism. For single-phase FAC,
this includes a description of the basic feedwater and HRSG evaporator chemistries and relates
these to the different oxides that form on the material surfaces under different oxidizing-reducing
potentials. This leads finally to how the hydrodynamic factors influence FAC.
The key differences between single-phase and two-phase FAC will be highlighted.
Finally, numerous examples are provided to illustrate the many facets of FAC in conventional
and combined cycle HRSG plants.
2.1 Mechanisms of FAC
2.1.1 Introduction to Single- and Two-Phase Flow and FAC
The FAC mechanism involves the dissolution of the oxide on the surface of the component. The
oxide on the surface is controlled by the chemistry of the fluid (feedwater or HRSG evaporator
water) in contact with the component. Thus understanding the solubility of the two oxides, Fe
3
O
4
and FeOOH, that can form under reducing and oxidizing conditions, is of paramount importance
in understanding the FAC mechanism and how to control it. Many factors influence FAC and the
overall solubility of these oxides (Table 2-1).
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-2
Table 2-1
Factors Influencing FAC in Fossil and HRSG Plants
1. Hydrodynamics
Velocity, geometry, steam quality, temperature and mass transfer
2. Water chemistry (feedwater in conventional and HRSG plants, and LP evaporator in HRSG)
ORP, oxygen and reducing agent
pH
3. Component material composition
carbon steel
chromium, copper and molybdenum
This section will address each of the factors to provide an understanding of the FAC process. But
first it is necessary to outline the overall fluid hydrodynamics for both conventional and HRSG
plants in terms of the FAC processes and failure mechanisms.
In the main feedwater line of conventional and HRSG plants, the fluid is essentially single-phase
water. Here the overriding influence for corrosion and FAC is the feedwater oxidizing-reducing
potential (ORP) or redox potential. For the carbon steel materials operating under reducing
feedwater chemistry the oxide formed is magnetite (Fe
3
O
4
), and its solubility is strongly
influenced by the reducing conditions. As shown in Table 1-3 this constitutes the highest
probability for FAC in a fossil plant with the highest solubility being around 150C (302F) as
shown later in this section. Simply changing the feedwater to an oxidizing treatment by
eliminating the reducing agent and/or adding oxygen will result in the formation of ferric oxide
hydrate (FeOOH). This reduces the solubility of the surface oxide by at least two orders of
magnitude in the temperature range up to about 300C (572F). Thus FAC, as an active
corrosion mechanism, will essentially be turned off.
In the drain lines, shell side of heaters and the deaerator of a conventional fossil plant, two-phase
flow will be predominant in certain areas of these pressure vessels. In these areas, it is not
possible to increase the oxidizing potential and thus materials solutions generally have to be
applied: weld overlay and temper bead repair (with chromium containing materials) or straight
replacement with chromium containing materials.
In HRSG low pressure evaporator circuits, which have both single- and two-phase flow, any
single-phase FAC can be controlled, as indicated above, by eliminating the reducing agent in the
feedwater so that it does not concentrate in the LP evaporator. To address any two-phase FAC, it
is necessary to increase the secondary controlling factor of evaporator pH by increasing the
feedwater pH (ammonia) or by adding a solid alkali (tri-sodium phosphate or NaOH) to the LP
drum if allowed by the circuitry.
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-3
2.1.2 Feedwater Chemistry for Fossil and HRSG Plants Controls the Oxide on the
Material Surface
Corrosion and FAC are a balance between the growth of the oxide on the metal surface and its
dissolution into the water. Under normal situations these two processes are approximately equal,
or their growth reaches an equilibrium situation; in either case an oxide forms on the surface
which provides protection. In the abnormal situation with FAC, the dissolution of the oxide into
the water is greater than its growth on the metal surface so that the remaining thickness is below
that needed to provide protection. In the most severe FAC cases, there is essentially no, or very
little, oxide on the surface. This applies to both single- and two-phase FAC. In both, it is always
the water phase that is responsible for the dissolution of the oxide.
Thus the generation of feedwater corrosion products represents a continuum: from the normal
and expected general corrosion to very high rates of FAC. Obviously the focus in fossil and
HRSG plants is to reduce FAC as much as possible, which is indicated by a minimum amount of
iron in the feedwater. The feedwater chemistry is critical to overall corrosion, FAC and
reliability of fossil and HRSG plants. There are three distinctly different feedwater treatments:
Reducing all-volatile treatment, AVT(R), which uses ammonia and a reducing agent. Here
the oxidizing-reducing potential ORP, should be in the range 300 to 350 mV
[Ag/AgCl/sat, KCl]. It should be noted that this range of ORP is not always achieved,
because ORP is a careful balance between the levels of oxygen and reducing agent, and
because ORP is a function of pH, temperature, materials, and the sensor characteristics.
(5)
Sometimes a reducing ORP can be as high as 80 to 100 mV.
Oxidizing all-volatile treatment, AVT(O), where the reducing agent has been eliminated.
Here the ORP will be around 0 mV but could be slightly positive or negative.
Oxygenated treatment (OT) where oxygen and ammonia are added to the feedwater. Here the
ORP can be as high as +100 to +150 mV.
A very achievable iron level for units operating with reducing treatments (AVT(R)) is less than
2 ppb of iron. For units operating with oxidizing treatments (AVT(O)), the iron levels can be
around 1 ppb or less. Optimum feedwater chemistry can accomplish both, and EPRIs new series
of Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for AVT,
(2)
PC,
(3)
CT
(3)
and OT
(4)
contain a section on selecting and
optimizing the treatment. These are also outlined in Section 6 of this Guideline. Table 2-2
provides a comparison of the feedwater chemistry limits for AVT and OT as a function of
feedwater metallurgy.
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-4
Table 2-2
Comparison of Normal Feedwater Cycle Chemistry Limits for AVT and OT as a Function of
Feedwater Metallurgy
Parameter AVT(R)
Mixed-Metallurgy
AVT(R)
All-Ferrous
AVT(O)
All-Ferrous
OT
All-Ferrous
pH 9 9.3 9.2 9.6 9.2 9.6 D. 9 9.4
O. 8 8.5
Cation Conductivity (S/cm) < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.15
Fe (ppb) at EI < 5 < 2 < 2 (< 1) < 2 (< 0.5)
Cu (ppb) at EI < 2 < 2* < 2* < 2*
O
2
(ppb) at EI < 5 (< 2) < 5 (< 2) < 10 D. 3050
O. 30150
O
2
(ppb) at CPD < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
Reducing Agent Yes Yes No No
ORP (mV) at DAI 300 to 350
+
300 to 350
+
Oxidizing Oxidizing
Notes: EI - economizer inlet, CPD - condensate pump discharge, DAI - deaerator inlet,
D - drum unit, O - once-through unit
* - Copper alloys may be present in condenser.
+
- These ORP values are meant to be indicative of a reducing treatment where a reducing agent
is added to the feedwater, after the CPD, and oxygen levels are less than 10 ppb at the CPD.
However, ORP is a sensitive function of many variables and may under these conditions be as
high as 80 mV.
For HRSG plants with all-ferrous feedwater systems the feedwater chemistry should be AVT(O)
to avoid single-phase FAC in the feedwater and LP evaporator circuit.
For both fossil and HRSG plants, the basic idea of AVT is to minimize corrosion and FAC by
using deaerated high purity water with elevated pH. The pH elevation should be achieved by the
addition of ammonia; organic amines are not needed, required or recommended. The actual pH
range depends on the cycle metallurgy as indicated in Table 2-2. The use and application of
AVT(R) in either type of plant with all-ferrous feedwater systems can result in FAC as described
below.
In response to the problems of corrosion and FAC, OT and AVT(O) were introduced. The
primary difference between these treatments and AVT(R) is that the oxidizing-reducing potential
(ORP) will always be oxidizing. It is this basic change that provides the tremendous benefits of
reducing corrosion, eliminating active FAC, and minimizing corrosion product transport.
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-5
2.1.3 Factors Affecting the Growth of Magnetite with AVT(R) which are the Basis
for FAC
With AVT(R), the protective cover layer on the iron based materials (carbon steels) in the
condensate and feedwater systems up to about 300 C (572 F) consists almost exclusively of
magnetite.
3Fe + 4H
2
O Fe
3
O
4
+ 4H
2
(2-1)
This reaction is considered to be the sum of two simultaneous processes:
First Process
A direct reaction occurs between iron and reducing water to form soluble species and
hydroxides. Reducing feedwater is considered to contain less than 10 ppb oxygen and a reducing
agent; this will give an ORP in the reducing range as indicated in Table 2-2. When iron corrodes
in an aqueous solution, both oxidation and reduction reactions occur at the anodic and cathodic
sites respectively.
At the anodic site, an oxidation process occurs which involves the dissolution of iron into iron
ions and free electrons:
Fe Fe
2+
(solution) + 2e
(2-2)
At the cathodic site, a reduction process occurs which is a gain of electrons. This is hydrogen
evolution:
2H
+
(solution) + 2e
H
2
(evolved from the surface) (2-3)
In reducing alkalized water, the cathodic reaction:
2H
2
O + 2e
2OH
+ H
2
(2-4)
Combining the anodic and cathodic reactions:
Fe + 2H
2
O Fe(OH)
2
+ H
2
(2-5)
Both ferrous ions and ferrous hydroxide can be obtained according to an equilibrium reaction:
Fe
2+
+ 2OH
Fe(OH)
2
(2-6)
Second Process
Magnetite forms through the Schikorr reaction:
3Fe(OH)
2
Fe
3
O
4
+ H
2
+ 2H
2
O (2-7)
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-6
This reaction has been well described by Sweeton and Baes
(6)
and by Tremaine and LeBlanc.
(7)
A schematic showing the growth mechanism and morphology of Fe
3
O
4
under AVT(R) conditions
is shown in Figure 2-1. This protective magnetite is usually thin (< 30 m) and exhibits lots of
oxide hydrates and loose (non-protective) magnetite particles in the outer layers.
1 Fe = Fe
2+
+ 2e
2 H
2
O + 2e
= 2 OH
+ H
2
2 Fe
2+
+ OH
= Fe(OH)
+
2 Fe(OH)
+
+ 2 H
2
O = 2 Fe(OH)
2
+
+ H
2
3 Fe(OH)
+
+ 2 Fe(OH)
2
+
+ 3 OH
= Fe
3
O
4
+ 4 H
2
O
Figure 2-1
Schematic of Magnetite Growth and Morphology under Reducing AVT Conditions
The formation of magnetite (Reaction 2-7) is inhibited by increasing pH, which causes a
reduction of the Fe
2+
and Fe(OH)
+
ion concentrations corresponding to the solubility products of
Fe(OH)
2
or the dissociation constants of the reactions:
Fe(OH)
2
Fe(OH)
+
+ OH
(2-8)
Fe(OH)
2
Fe
2+
+ 2OH
(2-9)
Figure 2-2 illustrates how the corrosion and dissolution of magnetite is reduced by increasing
pH.
(8)
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-7
Figure 2-2
Corrosion Product Release from Carbon Steel as a Function of pH
(8)
Figure 2-3 shows that the solubility of magnetite rises with increasing temperature, then
decreases with a steep drop to 300C (572F). This results in undesired magnetite deposits in this
temperature range. To maintain the solubility of ferrous hydroxide (Fe(OH)
2
) in the feedwater
below or equal to that of magnetite at around 250C (482F) and to exclude the possibility of
oversaturation, a minimum pH of at least 9.6 should be maintained.
(9)
A pH of 10 would be even
better, but is limited in the cycle if the unit has a copper tubed condenser.
The dissolution of magnetite into the reducing feedwater is also a function of potential. As
shown in Figure 2-4, decreasing the ORP leads to increasing amounts of iron in the feedwater.
This is, of course, the basis of single-phase FAC and the reason why all-ferrous feedwater
systems should be operated on AVT(O) (no reducing agent) or OT.
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-8
Figure 2-3
Solubility of Magnetite as a Function of Temperature at Various Ammonia
Concentrations.
(9)
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-9
Figure 2-4
Change in Oxidizing-Reducing Potential (ORP) and Feedwater Iron Levels (Fe) at the
Economizer Inlet when Hydrazine (N
2
H
4
) was Gradually Reduced on a 600 MW Fossil Drum
Unit with an All-Ferrous Feedwater System
As shown in Figure 2-1, with AVT(R), the steel surface in contact with water is covered by a
magnetite layer. It consists of a topotactic and an epitactic part. As shown in the figure, this
dense topotactic layer grows directly on the surface of the steel; the more porous epitactic layer
forms above the topotactic layer. In the low temperature region, the topotactic part of the
magnetite layer is very thin and the Fe
2+
ions are easily transported from the steel surface to the
oxide/water phase boundary through pores in the magnetite layer. The feedwater pH elevation
contributes to the formation of Fe(OH)
2
, which transforms (in the low temperature region
relatively slowly) to magnetite according to the Schikorr reaction (Reaction 2-7).
In the feedwater system, thermodynamic solubility equilibrium actually cannot be reached. For
this reason, the application of the known magnetite solubility data to real plant cycles is not
entirely practical. In most plant cycles, ferrous iron concentrations are comparable to those given
in Figure 2-2.
In summary the basic single-phase FAC mechanism is intimately linked to the use of reducing
treatments. For AVT(R) chemistry, the ORP is typically reducing and may be less than
300 mV, and the level of feedwater corrosion products will be less than 10 ppb. Most fossil and
HRSG plants can easily achieve 5 ppb; this situation is regarded as normal and not of major
concern from an FAC viewpoint.
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-10
However, for a unit with AVT(R) chemistry and high rates of FAC, the ORP will also be
reducing; but because of the local flow hydrodynamics, the total corrosion/dissolution process is
faster. In the worst cases, FAC will be so fast that there is only a very thin layer of Fe
3
O
4
on the
surface. Figure 2-5 shows such a case. Importantly, the level of feedwater corrosion products can
be much more than 10 ppb.
Section 2.1.6 discusses how the factors in Table 2-1 affect the FAC process.
Figure 2-5
Carbon Steel Material in Reducing Feedwater at a Location with Severe FAC. Note very
thin Fe
3
O
4
on surface.
2.1.4 Factors Affecting the Growth of Ferric Oxide Hydrate (FeOOH) with AVT(O)
and OT
Elimination of the reducing agent (AVT(O)) and/or addition of oxygen (OT) raises the free
corrosion potential of the steel by several hundred millivolts. The increase is especially distinct
in the temperature range below 150C (300F) (Figure 2-6).
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-11
Figure 2-6
Free Corrosion Potential for Carbon Steel as a Function of Oxygen and Temperature
(10)
With these oxidizing treatments, the protective cover layer pores become plugged with ferric
oxide hydrate FeOOH or ferric oxide Fe
2
O
3
(see Figure 2-7). In this way, the Fe
2+
ion diffusion
from the steel surface through the pores in the protective epitactic cover layer to the oxide/water
phase boundary is strongly inhibited. The few ferrous ions leaving the steel are oxidized either in
the layer pores or right at the protective layer/water boundary. The following oxidation reactions
are assumed:
(11)
2 Fe(OH)
2
+ 1/2 O
2
+ 2 H
+
= 2 Fe(OH)
2
+
+ H
2
O (2-10)
2 Fe(OH)
2
+ 1/2 O
2
= 2 FeOOH + H
2
O (2-11)
2Fe(OH)
2
+ 1/2 O
2
= Fe
2
O
3
+ 2 H
2
O (2-12)
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-12
Figure 2-7
Schematic of Oxide Growth and Morphology with AVT(O) and OT
For this reason, the ferrous ion concentration in the feedwater should be around 1 ppb under
AVT(O) conditions and below 1 ppb for OT conditions. Additionally, the ferric ion
concentration becomes almost undetectable. As an explanation of this fact, Figure 2-8 shows the
calculated solubility of ferric oxide -Fe
2
O
3
, ferric oxide-hydrate -FeOOH, and ferric
hydroxide.
(11)
This figure also shows the solubility field of magnetite plotted from Figure 2-3, and
illustrates the much lower solubility of the ferric oxide hydrates that form with oxidizing
treatments (AVT(O) and OT).
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-13
Figure 2-8
Solubility of Ferric Hydrate-Oxides at 0.5 ppm NH
4
OH (Data extracted from Reference 11)
Compared with Fe
3
O
4
Solubility (extracted from Figure 2-3)
The corrosion of carbon steel materials in AVT(O) or OT is characterized in the initial phase
(steel without protective layer) by the topotactic (inner layer) transformation of individual ferrite
grains to magnetite. Here, ferrous ions escape into the fluid boundary layer. A part of these ions
is transformed epitactically (outer layer) directly to magnetite. For its formation, the following
total reaction is established.
(12)
3 Fe
2+
+ 1/2 O
2
+ 3 H
2
O = Fe
3
O
4
+ 6H
+
(2-13)
The cover layer morphology is determined by the reactions:
(13)
2 Fe
3
O
4
+ H
2
O = 3 Fe
2
O
3
+ 2H
+
+ 2 e
(2-14)
and
Fe
3
O
4
+ 2 H
2
O = 3 FeOOH + H
+
+ e
(2-15)
Fe
2
O
3
may occur also as an aging product. The result is a double oxide layer on the steel,
consisting of magnetite covered by a layer with a high hematite content as shown on Figure 2-7.
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-14
The corrosion product formation in the passive region is controlled by the diffusion of metal ions
through the passive film and is usually very small.
(14)
The following reaction is given for the
formation of hematite:
aging dehydration
Fe
3+
+ 3 OH
-> Fe(OH)
3
-> Fe
2
O
3
.nH
2
O -> FeOOH -> Fe
2
O
3
(2-16)
Even with elevated temperature (up to around 300C, 572F), there is formation of the oxide
protecting layers which have a very low corrosion product release rate into the flowing water.
The major parameter for the adjustment of the desired free corrosion potential above the
passivation potential is the transport of the dissolved oxygen to the steel surface. A positive
effect is produced by:
An oxygen level increase (increase of the difference between the oxygen concentration in the
core flow and the oxygen concentration at the boundary steel/laminar sublayer).
An increase of the flow rate (reduction of the thickness of the laminar sublayer).
A temperature elevation (increase of the oxygen diffusion coefficient).
In summary, the oxidizing treatments (AVT(O) and OT) have the ability to deactivate the single-
phase FAC mechanism up to about 300C (572F). Under these conditions the ORP is greater
than zero (Table 2-2); conditions which favor the growth of FeOOH. This formation does two
things: i) reduces the overall corrosion rate because the diffusion (or access) of oxygen to the
base material is restricted (or reduced), and ii) reduces the solubility of the surface oxide layers
(Figure 2-8). Thus from an FAC perspective, this FeOOH layer dissolves much slower (at least
two orders of magnitude slower) than magnetite into the flowing feedwater, under exactly the
same hydrodynamic conditions that existed previously with AVT(R) chemistry. The overall
result is that the measured feedwater corrosion products can be much less than 1 ppb and FAC is
minimal. Figure 2-9 shows the protective oxide formed after one year on oxidizing feedwater
treatment; this is exactly the same area shown in Figure 2-5, which under reducing feedwater
treatment (AVT(R)) had suffered severe FAC and failure.
Finally it must be noted that not all feedwater systems in fossil and HRSG plants can run under
an oxidizing regime. This is discussed in the next section.
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-15
Figure 2-9
Metallographic Cross-Section through an Economizer Inlet-Header Tube After Operating
under an Oxidizing Feedwater Condition for One Year. The protective oxide formed on the
surface should be compared to that under a reducing condition which resulted in FAC
(Figure 2-5).
2.1.5 Importance of Feedwater Metallurgy for FAC in Fossil Plants
The feedwater system in fossil plants can consist of all-ferrous materials (all-ferrous system) or a
mixture of copper containing feedwater tubing and ferrous piping (mixed-metallurgy systems).
The exact configuration has important ramifications on the choice of feedwater chemistry, and
on FAC.
There are essentially two types of all-ferrous systems: those containing only carbon steel in the
tubing and piping, and those containing stainless steel tubing and carbon steel piping. As can
clearly be seen in Table 1-3 most of the serious FAC failures in fossil plants have occurred when
all the feedwater heater tubing (both LP and HP) is stainless steel, and the chemistry is AVT(R).
This implies that the reducing environment is more severe in the HP feedwater when the tubing
is stainless as compared to when the tubing is carbon steel or copper-based.
Mixed-metallurgy systems can only use AVT(R) feedwater chemistry
(15)
which maintains a
reducing environment under all operating regimes to protect the copper based tubing (Table 2-2).
This means that the carbon steel interconnecting piping and the economizer inlet tubing must
also be exposed to the same reducing environment. Review of the extensive EPRI database on
FAC and observation of Table 1-3 indicates that no serious FAC failures have occurred in fossil
plants with mixed-metallurgy systems; however wall loss associated with FAC has been
observed in these plants. This apparent anomaly relates to the fact that the copper alloys and
oxides act as a catalyst for the reaction between the reducing agent (hydrazine) and dissolved
oxygen in the feedwater. Because serious failures have occurred in nuclear plants with mixed-
EPRI Licensed Material
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
2-16
metallurgy systems, the carbon steel components in mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems must
be subjected to the same rigorous FAC programs as for the all-ferrous systems.
2.1.6 FAC Influencing Factors
Sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 have described how the FAC mechanism is dependent on the solubility
of the surfaces oxides. Single-phase FAC essentially occurs with AVT(R) chemistry, where
magnetite is the surface oxide; its solubility peaks at around 150C (300F) (Figure 2-3). Severe
FAC occurs when the dissolution and exfoliation or spalling of magnetite from the surface is
greater than its growth on the pressure vessel/tube surface, thus increasing the amount of
particulate magnetite in the feedwater or LP HRSG evaporator. This section discusses the factors
which accelerate this dissolution process.
The FAC mechanism under reducing conditions is further illustrated in Figure 2-10. At low
velocities, the flow is laminar and essentially parallel to the surface of the metal or to the
adjacent streamlines. In this case the velocity varies from essentially zero near to the oxide/water
surface to a maximum at the centerline of the pressure vessel/tube. In this case, the growth of
Fe
3
O
4
at the oxide/steel interface matches the dissolution. At higher velocities, the action of the
friction between the water and the oxide induces irregular fluctuating radial and axial velocity
components with flow. The fluid is mixed in a random manner and becomes turbulent. In this
case the growth of Fe
3
O
4
cannot match the flow-accelerated dissolution, exfoliation and
spallation and the oxide thickness reduces and thus becomes less protective. This is FAC. In this
case, the levels of iron oxide (particulate) measured in fossil plant and HRSG feedwater systems
and in HRSG evaporator circuits are likely to be high, and can be over 1520 ppb.
Figure 2-10
Mechanism of the FAC in Flowing AVT(R). Note: C
s
is the concentration of iron at the
oxide/solution interface (oxide solubility) and C
T
life
t
c
t
accpt
R SF
=
EPRI Licensed Material
Inspection-Based Activities
5-26
For those components that have been inspected, it is recommended that actual measured values
be used for t
c
. For components not inspected, t
c
can be predicted utilizing predicted wear rates,
t
c
= t
init
- predicted wear
= t
init
- (T x R x SF)
where,
T = component service time to date
R = average wear rate over time T
SF = safety factor
If the predicted remaining service life is shorter than the amount of time until the next inspection,
there are three options for disposition of the component:
1. Shorten the inspection interval.
2. Perform a detailed stress analysis to obtain a more accurate value of the acceptable thickness.
3. Repair or replace the component.
5.8 Outage Documentation
The results of the major decisions and results of the outage inspections should be documented,
and appropriate records should be maintained. It is recommended that a report be prepared for
each inspection outage. This report should identify the components inspected and justify the
basis for their selection, (i.e., predictive ranking, industry experience, engineering judgment), the
results of those inspections, and an evaluation and disposition of worn components. The plant
database of inspection and replacement history should be updated after every outage.
5.9 Perform Necessary Repairs and Replacements
Where unacceptable damage has been found (as determined by the structural evaluations of
Subsection 5.7.1), it is necessary to repair or replace the affected components. One mitigating
approach that is sometimes used is to replace only those fittings that have experienced significant
wear. This approach is satisfactory if the wear is very localized. This is the case in which the
wear is concentrated downstream of a flow control valve or an orifice. In most cases, though, the
wear is widespread throughout a susceptible line or system. Unless changes to cycle chemistry
can be implemented to control FAC damage, it is only a matter of time until upstream or
downstream fittings will also need to be replaced. This fitting-by-fitting replacement approach is
less expensive in the short term, but is generally not cost effective over the long term. Plants
using this selected replacement technique have also experienced unexpected failures in
components scheduled for future replacement. It is recommended that when making repairs,
strong consideration be given to replacing the entire line or spool piece with a resistant material
EPRI Licensed Material
Inspection-Based Activities
5-27
(Cr content > 1.25%). Again, unless changes to cycle chemistry can be implemented to control
FAC damage, replacement/repair with carbon steel will result in repeat FAC damage.
5.9.1 Repairing and Replacing Components
The following items should be considered in making replacement decisions:
The cost and availability of replacement fittings.
The need for skills and procedures to weld alloy steels and clad material to carbon steel, or
apply weld overlays or use the temper bead technique.
The pre-and post-weld heat treatments required for welding chrome-molybdenum fittings.
This heat treatment may affect the outage schedule.
The piping stress analysis required if a large portion of a carbon steel line is replaced with
stainless steel.
The feasibility of replacing the entire system with a more wear-resistant material.
If repair is decided upon, the weld buildup technique is commonly used for the temporary repair
of piping. Interior weld buildup is generally preferred to exterior buildup for the following
reasons:
Interior weld repair results in a smoother internal surface.
By using interior weld repair, the resulting, smoother internal surface reduces the difficulty
of making future UT inspections.
An exterior weld buildup tends to result in a more complex state of stress.
Temporary clamping devices or furmanite boxes are often used to make temporary repairs to low
pressure piping. However, permanent repairs should be made at the first opportunity in the event
that the damage is growing and may cause the component to lose structural integrity (i. e.,
completely rupture).
If repair or replacement of a component is necessary, it is recommended that the plant owner
develop a strategy so that the wear process does not continue. This essentially means not
repairing/replacing with carbon steel material. However, there are cases in which use of like-for-
like (i.e., non-FAC resistant) material is appropriate. These cases include:
The plant has optimized the feedwater chemistry (Sections 2 and 6) or the line will
experience less damaging operating conditions (e.g., a higher steam quality) such that the
replacement is projected to last the remaining life of the plant.
Procurement of a resistant material would delay plant restart. In this case, consideration
should be given to upgrading the replacement with a resistant material at the next outage.
EPRI Licensed Material
Inspection-Based Activities
5-28
The remaining life of the plant is such that a like-for-like replacement will perform
satisfactorily.
Life cycle costs and risk considerations associated with like-for-like replacement, including
associated inspection costs, do not support change to FAC resistant material.
5.9.2 Use of FAC Resistant Materials
It has been widely demonstrated that materials containing chromium are resistant to FAC
damage. Lesser improvements come from molybdenum and copper. Replacing carbon steel
piping with chrome-molybdenum alloy (SA335, Grade P11 or P22) (1.25 or 2.25% Cr alloys) or
stainless steel (normally a 304 alloy) should alleviate FAC damage for the life of the plant. The
benefit can also be achieved by coating the piping surface with a high-alloy layer (flame
spraying or weld overlay) or using a clad pipe with a high-chromium or stainless steel inner layer
surrounded by a carbon steel outer layer. In all cases replacement should be with a minimum of a
1.25% Cr alloy. Recent EPRI work has reviewed the use of weld overlay for repair of FAC
damage to deaerators
(11)
. This review notes the need for further weld procedure development to
allow use of chromium levels greater than 1.25% without performing post weld heat treatment.
EPRI work is ongoing.
In the specific case of two-phase FAC damage to both conventional fossil plant components and
to HRSG components, use of FAC resistant materials will likely provide the most cost-effective,
longterm control of FAC damage since cycle chemistry control options are limited as discussed
in Sections 2 and 6.
Table 5-2 presents the degree of improvement associated with common piping
alloys, as
predicted by CHECUP, which is based on the data of Ducreux
(12)
. This data is generally
considered the definitive work in the area of the influence of material composition on FAC wear
rate. It is clear from the values shown in the table that FAC can be effectively eliminated through
material improvement.
Table 5-2
Performance of Common FAC-Resistant Alloys
Material
Nominal Composition
(Chrome & Moly only)
Rate
carbon
/Rate
alloy
_________________
P11 1.25% Cr, 0.50% Mo 34
P22 2.25% Cr, 1.00% Mo 65
304 18% Cr >250
Material changes can be used to replace an entire system or to repair an especially troublesome
area. However, material replacement may not reduce the wear rate if the damage is caused by a
mechanism other than FAC. This is the case, for instance, if the damage is caused by cavitation
or liquid impingement.
EPRI Licensed Material
Inspection-Based Activities
5-29
5.9.3 System Design Changes
When repairing a section or line of piping damaged by FAC, some consideration can also be
given to design changes, particularly when a like-for-like replacement is made. However, design
changes generally result in only small reductions to the rate of FAC damage. For example,
reducing the flow velocity by changing the diameter of a piping system from 12 to 14 inches (30-
35 cm) will only reduce the FAC rate by about 20%. One instance, however, where design
change can be effective occurs in increasing the pipe diameter to reduce the velocity in control
valve stations. Valve stations are typically designed to accommodate the flow capacity of the
control valves. This typically results in a reduced diameter of about 60% of the line size and a
consequent increase in the fluid velocity. This locally increased velocity has often caused
damage downstream of the valve. Redesigning the valve station to reduce the local velocity and
turbulence can greatly reduce the rate of FAC damage.
5.10 References
1. CHECWORKS Computer Program Users Guide, TR-103496, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
August 1994.
2. CHECWORKS Fossil Plant Application - CHECUP Code, Version 1.0 User Guide,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1998. TR-103198-P5.
3. CHECUPweb Version 1.0 a web application on the EPRI Solutions production server, EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1008127
4. NDE of Ferritic Piping for Erosion/Corrosion, NP-5410, Electric Power Research Institute,
September 1987.
5. FAC Wear Rate Assessment Through Insulation, EPRI, EPRI NDE Center, Charlotte, NC:
2000. 1000114.
6. On-Line Flow-Accelerated Corrosion Assessment of Large Diameter Piping Through
Insulation with Radiographic Techniques, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA and Florida Power & Light,
Juno Beach, FL: 2004. 1009594.
7. Assessment of the Pulsed Eddy Current Technique: Detecting Flow-Accelerated Corrosion in
Feedwater Piping, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1997. TR-109146.
8. Interim Guidelines for the Nondestructive Examination of Heat Recovery Steam Generators,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1004506.
9. In-service Feedwater Heater Condition Assessment Using the Pulsed Eddy Current NDE
Technology, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001. 1006372.
EPRI Licensed Material
Inspection-Based Activities
5-30
10. American National Standard Code for Pressure Piping, Power Piping, ANSI B31.1.
11. Repair of Deaerators, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004, 1008069.
12. J. Ducreux, Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Chemical
Composition of Steels on Their Erosion-Corrosion Resistance, presented at the Specialists
Meeting on the Corrosion-Erosion of Steels in High-Temperature Water and Wet Steam, Les
Renardieres, France, May 1982.
EPRI Licensed Material
6-1
6
OPTIMIZE FEEDWATER CHEMISTRY IN
CONVENTIONAL FOSSIL AND HRSG PLANTS
For conventional fossil plants as indicated in Section 3 (Figure 3-1), it is suggested that a utility
address both the Inspection Based Activities and optimize the feedwater chemistry in a parallel
path set of activities in developing an overall approach to FAC. The importance of feedwater
chemistry in the mechanism of FAC, and its interface with the different materials (all-ferrous or
mixed-metallurgy) under reducing and oxidizing conditions was discussed in Section 2.
Changes in feedwater treatment can significantly reduce the rate of single-phase FAC, and in
some cases (such as with OT in all-ferrous systems) can almost eliminate it.
Similarly in HRSGs, optimizing the cycle chemistry can significantly assist in controlling FAC.
As discussed in Sections 2 and 3, the cycle chemistry can be optimized in: a) the feedwater to
control single-phase FAC (Step 9 on Figure 3-2), and b) the evaporator to control both single-
and two-phase FAC (Step 10 in Figure 3-2).
Chemistry changes are an attractive solution for FAC as they affect the damage mechanisms
globally. It is also recognized that the cycle chemistry is very important to the overall
availability of other parts of the fossil and HRSG plants, as the corrosion products generated
flow around the cycle and deposit in the higher heat transfer areas. These locations can act as the
initiating centers for other damage mechanisms.
EPRI has a series of guidelines for fossil plant cycle chemistry
(1,2,3)
and for HRSGs.
(4)
The
feedwater guideline limits are shown in Table 2-2. This Section addresses the selection and
optimization of feedwater treatment and is an extracted compilation from the latest guideline
documents with particular emphasis for FAC control and minimization. Optimization of the
evaporator chemistry for HRSGs is discussed in Step 10 of the road map for controlling FAC in
HRSGs (Section 3.2).
6.1 Optimization of All-Ferrous Feedwater Chemistry in Conventional and
HRSG Units
Figure 6-1 shows a road map for optimizing the feedwater treatment in all-ferrous systems. The
primary purposes of this important activity are to minimize corrosion product transport,
eliminate any possibility for single-phase FAC, and thus to reduce the accumulation of corrosion
product deposition on the boiler waterwalls. The methodology described here is equally
applicable for both drum and once-through conventional fossil units and for HRSG units with
all-ferrous feedwater systems.
EPRI Licensed Material
Optimize Feedwater Chemistry in conventional Fossil and HRSG Plants
6-2
Step 1 - Review Normal or Current Feedwater Treatment
This step involves a review of the current feedwater treatment, which is probably AVT(R) with a
reducing agent. If there are no current problems then continue to use the current treatment. Such
a review would indicate that the operating experience has been good, that minimal chemical
control problems have been experienced, that no BTF or HTF in the waterwalls or evaporators
relating to waterside problems have occurred in the last five years, that no turbine deposition or
blade failure problems have occurred, and that the feedwater is operating in the optimum fashion
with minimum levels of feedwater corrosion products (less than 2 ppb at the economizer inlet).
In such cases of good experience, no changes need to be made. However, it is suggested that the
road map is reviewed as there may be considerable economic savings to be gained by converting
to AVT(O) or OT, and it should be remembered that single-phase FAC is always possible with
reducing feedwater chemistry (AVT(R)) (Section 2). If the review indicates problems, then some
baseline monitoring is required (Step 2).
Step 2 - Monitoring Baseline on Current Feedwater Treatment
This step involves a complete base-line monitoring to quantify the current chemical parameters
and, in Step 3, to determine whether continued use of a reducing agent and AVT(R) or a change
to AVT(O) should be contemplated.
This program would utilize the installed chemistry monitoring system, which involves the core
level of instrumentation.
(14)
The monitoring program should pay particular attention to the adequacy of the makeup and
chemical feed systems, condenser tightness, air in-leakage, and corrosion product transport.
EPRI Licensed Material
Optimize Feedwater Chemistry in conventional Fossil and HRSG Plants
6-3
Figure 6-1
Road Map for Optimizing Feedwater Treatment for All-Ferrous Feedwater Systems.
EPRI Licensed Material
Optimize Feedwater Chemistry in conventional Fossil and HRSG Plants
6-4
This monitoring involves taking a thumb-print of the unit under typical operating conditions
to identify under controlled conditions exactly how the unit chemistry is behaving. It may
involve a review of the operating chemistry logs, but this often is not satisfactory and it is
preferable to undertake a monitoring campaign. Before this campaign is initiated, it is important
to review the utilitys chemistry monitoring capability and reliability. This should include
Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) of existing and normally utilized analytical
chemistry monitoring and analysis methodology and equipment.
The monitoring campaign should include:
Varying Operating Conditionsbase load, startup and shutdown
Steam Chemistrycation conductivity, sodium, chloride, silica and sulfate
Feedwater Chemistrycation conductivity, chloride, corrosion products (Fe, Cu), oxygen
and pH.
Operation of Condensate Polishers (if included)
If this step indicates a low level of feedwater corrosion product transport (such as Fe <2 ppb) and
acceptable feedwater purity from a dissolved solids standpoint with the control chemistry
meeting the guideline values provided in the EPRI Guidelines,
(14)
then an organization might
consider to continue with the current AVT(R) feedwater chemistry. Further confirmation, for
conventional fossil plants, of optimum feedwater chemistry will be that waterwall deposition
rates have historically been much less than 1 mg/cm
2
/1000 hours (about 1 g/ft
2
/1000 hours), that
the interval between chemical cleans has historically been longer than every 10 years, and that
there has been no indication of FAC in the feedwater, feedwater steamside, deaerator, or
feedwater heater drain lines. For HRSG plants, confirmation would be low levels (< 5 ppb) of
iron around the cycle.
Step 3 - Evaluate Reducing Agent Requirements
This step is a subset of Step 2 and should involve a series of tests to minimize the generation and
transport of feedwater corrosion products.
Many utilities with all-ferrous systems have found that, with proper air in-leakage control
(dissolved oxygen at the CPD of less than 10 ppb), the reducing agent (such as hydrazine) can be
eliminated without jeopardizing chemistry control on the unit and move to AVT(O). Thus in
Step 3, a series of tests could be performed to evaluate the need for a reducing agent and, if
needed, to determine the proper reducing agent level. The tests should utilize the monitoring
system instrumentation (used in Step 2) while reducing or eliminating the reducing agent dosage.
Particular note should be made of dissolved oxygen levels and the level of corrosion products
generated during each test. Table 2-2 should be referenced for typical parameter ranges.
Particular attention should be paid to the fact that there can be a long time between changes in
the feedwater chemistry and corrosion product transport, so careful planning is needed for
accurate extended tests.
EPRI Licensed Material
Optimize Feedwater Chemistry in conventional Fossil and HRSG Plants
6-5
Step 4 - Monitoring with New Feedwater Treatment
Step 4 involves a period of normal operation with the new feedwater treatment, which
occasionally requires repetition of monitoring in Step 2 to confirm that running with reduced or
zero reducing agent provides the optimum feedwater treatment. This might involve a reduced
monitoring effort which just looks at feedwater oxygen and corrosion products at the economizer
inlet, in parallel with the cycle core parameters
(14)
, which should be normally continuously
recorded and alarmed.
In units with all-ferrous feedwater systems, but with copper based condenser tubing, there is a
possibility of copper corrosion particularly in the air removal section of the condenser. If
increased copper transport is measured at the CPD, then considerations should be given to a
reduction in cycle pH from 9.29.6 to 9.09.3 as needed to reduce copper levels to those present
during baseline monitoring. Of course such an increase in copper dissolution will not be a result
of the AVT(R) to AVT (O) change, but the pH reduction was probably needed when operating in
the AVT(R) mode.
Steps 5 and 6 - Consider Converting to OT
Once the baseline monitoring (Step 2) and a period of normal operation has been undertaken
then the question can be raised about whether the unit could run on oxygenated treatment (Step
5). For conventional fossil plants, the reader is referenced to Sections 8 and 2.7 of the OT
Guidelines
(3)
for guidance on OT conversion and for frequently asked questions on OT which
provides step-by-step guidance on whether a unit is suitable for OT and how to convert units to
OT (Step 6) in a sequential fashion.
It should be noted that conversion to OT will take a number of weeks (more for drum units) and
must include passivation of the heater drains and optimizing of vent operation on the heaters and
deaerators.
Step 7 - Continue to Optimize the Feedwater Treatment
This step continues the efforts described in Steps 3 and 4.
Step 8 - Operation and Continuing Monitoring
When Step 7 results are satisfactory, indicating trouble-free water chemistry and operation, then
normal operational monitoring resumes. However, there should be periodic reviews of water
chemistry and equipment scale and corrosion problems, and chemical transport studies should be
performed every two to three years to ensure that equipment aging and other changes do not
result in problems. The water chemistry and operating manuals should be updated to reflect the
changes resulting from the optimization.
The feedwater treatment used on each unit, whether this is AVT(R), AVT(O) or OT, should be
continually checked to ensure it is always the optimum treatment.
EPRI Licensed Material
Optimize Feedwater Chemistry in conventional Fossil and HRSG Plants
6-6
6.2 Optimization of Feedwater Treatment for Conventional Fossil Plants
with Mixed-Metallurgy Systems
Figure 6-2 shows a road map for optimizing the feedwater treatment in conventional fossil plants
with mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems, and for ensuring that FAC will be minimized on the
carbon steel components. For mixed-metallurgy systems, the optimum pH control (9.0-9.3)
(Table 2-2)
(1,2)
is a compromise of the optimum corrosion protection for each metal. The brief
outline of the steps below are from an FAC perspective, but it is important that the reader
references the EPRI Guidelines
(1,2)
to get the full unit perspective for mixed-metallurgy units.
Step 1 - Review of Water Chemistry, Operation, and Experience
This step involves a review of the past and current feedwater treatments to assess whether FAC
is, or maybe will be a future, problem and also to determine if the feedwater treatment can be
optimized to minimize the level of feedwater corrosion products. If there have been no problems
in the unit, no evidence of any FAC damage or failure (Tables 1-2 and 1-3), and the level of
feedwater corrosion products at the economizer inlet are in agreement with the EPRI guideline
limits for mixed-metallurgy units (Table 2-2), then continue the current treatment. However, it is
suggested that the road map is reviewed as there may be considerable economic savings to be
gained. Also in mixed-metallurgy systems both the iron and copper corrosion products have to
be optimized as the latter contributes seriously to copper fouling of the HP turbine.
(5)
EPRI Licensed Material
Optimize Feedwater Chemistry in conventional Fossil and HRSG Plants
6-7
Review design and
materials experience.
Review current
treatment, sampling
and monitoring.
No current
problems
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3 Step 5
Step 6
Step 4
Step 7 Step 8
Continue use of
current treatment
No problems, BUT
possible economic
savings
Baseline
monitoring
Low level of
corrosion products
Water chemistry
optimization (pH,
ammonia/amine,
reducing agent)
Operation
Monitoring to
compare with
baseline
Long-term plans
Continual check of
chemistry
Design and
materials changes
Step 9
Normal operation
and monitoring
Implementation
Figure 6-2
Road Map for Optimizing Feedwater Treatment for Mixed Metal Systems (Cu/Fe) to
Minimize Feedwater Corrosion Products (Fe and Cu), and FAC of the Carbon Steel
Components
Step 2 - Baseline Monitoring
Baseline monitoring is a step which determines cycle chemical characteristics such as oxygen
control, and transport of corrosion products. The monitoring involves taking a thumb-print of
the unit under typical operating conditions to identify under controlled conditions exactly how
the unit chemistry is behaving, and whether the feedwater chemistry is contributing to FAC of
the carbon steel components.
The monitoring campaign should include:
Varying Operating Conditions - base load, startup, shutdown, etc.
Steam Chemistry - cation conductivity, sodium, chloride, silica and sulfate
EPRI Licensed Material
Optimize Feedwater Chemistry in conventional Fossil and HRSG Plants
6-8
Feedwater Chemistry - cation conductivity, chloride, corrosion products (Fe, Cu),
oxygen, pH, oxidizing-reducing potential (ORP)
Drain lines - oxygen, ORP, and corrosion products
Operation of Condensate Polishers
During the tests for optimum pH and ammonia concentrations for mixed-metallurgy systems, it
is extremely important that both iron and copper feedwater corrosion are monitored.
If this step indicates a low level of feedwater corrosion products (such as Fe < 5 ppb and Cu < 2
ppb), and acceptable feedwater purity meeting the guideline limits (Table 2-2), then it is
suggested to continue with the current chemistry as future single-phase FAC damage is not likely
to be a serious problem. This does not preclude FAC having taken place with previous
feedwater treatments.
Step 3 - Water Chemistry Optimization
If Step 2 has identified a problem with corrosion and/or FAC, then a careful series of feedwater
optimization changes may improve the situation. Feedwater chemistry optimization usually
consists of reducing air in-leakage, minimization of ammonia concentration and determining the
optimum reducing agent dosage. All efforts must be directed along two paths: to minimize
copper corrosion, and control corrosion and FAC of the carbon steel components. In fossil
plants, there is little room for application of alternate reducing agents and volatile amines
because of the problems with their thermal decomposition and generation of organic acids and
CO
2
. Thus in most units with copper alloys in the feedwater system, hydrazine is the only
reducing agent recommended.
In this step, a series of tests should be performed to determine the proper reducing agent levels.
The tests will utilize the monitoring parameters in Step 2, with particular emphasis on dissolved
oxygen, ORP, and feedwater corrosion products. ORP (measured at the deaerator inlet) is
particularly important with mixed-metallurgy units as a reducing environment is required for the
copper containing alloys
(5)
.
Step 4 - Design and Material Changes
See Section 5.
Step 5 - Operation
As indicated in Section 2, once design deficiencies, improper materials or operating features are
identified as the root causes of any FAC problems, these deficiencies need to be corrected. A
follow-up chemistry monitoring campaign will need to be conducted (Step 6) to ensure low
feedwater corrosion products and a low probability of FAC.
EPRI Licensed Material
Optimize Feedwater Chemistry in conventional Fossil and HRSG Plants
6-9
Step 6 - Monitoring to Compare with Baseline Data
This step is aimed at verifying the effectiveness of the implemented solutions to water chemistry,
corrosion and FAC problems.
Step 7 - Normal Operation and Monitoring
When Step 6 results are satisfactory, indicating long-time, trouble-free water chemistry and
operation, normal operational monitoring resumes. The major criterion of an optimized
feedwater treatment with minimum FAC is that the core parameters are within the normal
guideline limits (Table 2-2).
Step 8 - Continual Check of Chemistry
The continual check on the optimized treatment (Step 8) and the core parameters will determine
whether fine tuning is necessary (Repeat of Steps 3 and 6).
Step 9 - Longterm Plans
Based on the effectiveness of the solutions of water chemistry and corrosion problems
implemented in a specific unit and on the equipment life predictions (i.e., feedwater heater and
condenser tube deterioration) longterm plans can be formulated. This can include planning for
ultimate replacement of copper alloys, retrofit of condensate polishers, nitrogen sparging and
blanketing of the storage tanks used to fill the system during startup, etc.
Industry experience shows that the maximum reduction of corrosion product transport in fossil
power plant cycles can only be obtained by eliminating chemical control compromises caused by
the use of mixed metal feedwater systems. Experience has also shown that the installation of a
full-flow condensate polishing system with a startup cleanup system provides optimized
corrosion product transport control.
EPRI Licensed Material
Optimize Feedwater Chemistry in conventional Fossil and HRSG Plants
6-10
6.3 References
1. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: All-Volatile Treatment, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
November 2002. 1004187.
2. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Phosphate Continuum and Caustic
Treatment, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: January 2004. 1004188.
3. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Oxygenated Treatment, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
2005. 1004925.
4. a) Interim Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Combined Cycle HRSGs, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
November 1998. TR-110051.
b) The first revision of this guideline will be published at the end of 2005 as: EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA. 1010438.
5. Guidelines for Copper in Fossil Plants, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: November 2000. 1000457.
EPRI Licensed Material
7-1
7
PERFORM LONGTERM MONITORING AND
INSPECTIONS
It is most important that all plants conduct longterm monitoring and inspections of lines
susceptible to FAC, and continually check that the feedwater chemistry meets the guideline
limits of Table 2-2. This will provide a higher degree of assurance as to continued plant safety
and operational integrity than will one time inspections. The recommended frequency and extent
of future inspections will depend on the extent of damage found in the initial inspections, along
with plant actions to reduce susceptibility such as optimizing the feedwater chemistry in
conventional and HRSG plants, as well as the evaporator chemistry in HRSG plants.
Follow-on inspections on an annual basis are suggested as follows:
On all susceptible lines of plants that have not optimized their feedwater chemistry,
On all lines that have very little structural margins, and
On all lines that are found to have moderate to aggressive operating conditions.
Longterm monitoring (i. e., fewer inspections and inspections more widely spaced in time) can
be performed in the following case:
On lines of plants that have optimized their feedwater chemistry according to the procedures
in Section 6, and were found to have reasonable amounts of structural margins.
In case of doubt, it is recommended that follow-on inspections be performed until it is clearly
established that the line can be put into a longterm monitoring program.
7.1 Follow-On Inspections
Follow-on inspections should be conducted for each line of plants that have not optimized their
chemistry, were found to have little structural margin, or have aggressive operating conditions.
The purpose of the inspections are to:
1. Confirm the results of the first inspection.
2. Obtain data for trending wear for use in predicting remaining service life. This is done by
inspecting some of the previously inspected, highly-ranked components.
3. Consider inspecting those components with a short relative remaining service life to confirm
that all components are suitable for continued service.
EPRI Licensed Material
Perform Longterm Monitoring and Inspections
7-2
The timing of the follow-on inspections should be conservatively selected considering results
from the previous inspections, predictions of the Predictive Plant Model, structural margins,
presence of any known aggravating conditions (e.g., leaking, flashing, or cycling valves),
potential consequences of failure, and plant and industry experience. For example, lines with
high wear rates or low structural margins should be reinspected at the next outage.
It is recommended that the following components be included in a second inspection for each
Analysis Line (definition of Analysis Line was provided in Section 5):
1. A minimum of three components from the initial inspection having the most FAC wear. This
will help confirm predictions made by the Predictive Plant Model and verify the inspection
and data acquisition systems used.
2. Consider inspecting a representative sample of components for which the updated Predictive
Plant Model shows a remaining service life of less than the amount of time until the next
scheduled inspection (if the Predictive Plant Model offers this feature). This situation can
occur in both previously inspected components as well as non-inspected components. See
Section 5 for calculations of predicted remaining service life.
The sample should represent factors such as component type, location, upstream influences,
train where located, size, operating conditions, etc. For example, results of an inspection of
one elbow closely located on the same train with two other elbows (e.g., same predicted wear
rate and remaining service life) could serve to represent all three elbows. However, three
otherwise identical elbows located on different trains should not be qualified by one
inspection.
3. Consideration should also be given to inspecting problem areas that have been experienced at
other power plants since the initial inspection.
Inspections following the second inspection should be scheduled as necessary to monitor plant
susceptibility and to inspect wearing components prior to the end of their predicted service life.
For each Analysis Line, the interval until the next inspection outage should be based on the
results of the prior inspection and any changes in plant design, operating conditions, and water
chemistry since then. Industry experience with problem areas in other plants should also be
considered.
It is recommended that the next inspection for each component be scheduled for no later than the
normally scheduled outage preceding the end of the predicted FAC service life of the component
plus an appropriate safety factor. At that outage, it is recommended that the following
components, at minimum, be included for inspection:
1. Consider inspecting a representative sample of components for which the remaining service
life is less than the amount of time until the next scheduled inspection outage, with an
appropriate safety factor.
The sample should represent factors such as component type, location, upstream influences,
train where located, size, operating conditions, etc. For example, results of an inspection of
one elbow closely located on the same train with two other elbows (e.g., same predicted wear
rate and remaining service life) could serve to represent all three elbows. However, three
EPRI Licensed Material
Perform Longterm Monitoring and Inspections
7-3
otherwise identical elbows located on different trains should not be qualified by one
inspection.
2. A minimum of the highest-wear component found in the previous inspection, if it has not
already been replaced.
In addition, the following components should be considered for inspection:
1. Straight pipe and other components within two diameters downstream of any component
replaced in the previous inspection, or two diameters upstream if the replaced component
was an expander or expanding elbow.
2. Susceptible piping components immediately downstream of control valves and orifices that
showed wear from previous outage inspections for trending of the measured wear.
3. Areas that have experienced problems at other plants since the previous inspection.
4. Components on lines with two-phase flow conditions.
5. To confirm predictions, consideration should also be given to periodically inspecting
previously repaired and replaced components, unless the replacement components are
fabricated of a FAC-resistant material.
It is recommended that the user monitor plant design and operational changes between scheduled
inspection outages and update the susceptibility analysis (see Section 5) and the FAC analysis as
appropriate.
If inspection results are unexpected and inconsistent with predictions, the reasons for those
inconsistencies should be investigated. An updated FAC analysis should be performed, and
additional inspections conducted and material determinations made as appropriate.
The above process for follow-on inspections should be repeated for the life of the plant.
7.2 Longterm Monitoring
Longterm monitoring can be performed for lines with significant structural margins and non-
aggressive operating conditions of plants that have optimized their feedwater chemistry. It is
recommended that some locations on these lines be inspected every few years to ensure that
unexpected damage has not occurred and significant structural margins still remain. The
following locations should be considered for these inspections:
1. A minimum of the highest-wear component found in the previous inspection, if it has not
already been replaced.
2. Susceptible piping components immediately downstream of control valves and orifices that
showed wear from a previous outage.
3. Any line with two-phase flow conditions
4. Areas that have experienced problems at other plants since the previous inspection.
5. The sample should represent factors such as component type, location, upstream influences,
train where located, size, operating conditions, etc.
EPRI Licensed Material
Perform Longterm Monitoring and Inspections
7-4
7.3 Outage Documentation
It is recommended that the results of the outage inspections be documented in a calculations
package, and checked if possible by an independent engineer. This would include the inspection
results and the evaluation as to acceptability of component wear.
EPRI Licensed Material
A-1
A
BENCHMARKING AN ORGANIZATIONS FAC
PROGRAM IN CONVENTIONAL FOSSIL PLANTS
Introduction
The following is a Benchmarking Process to assess an organizations or a plants fossil FAC
Program
Assessing the FAC Organization of a Utility
The attached form can be a self-assessment or completed by EPRI during an FAC course or
plant/system review. It involves seven results oriented, FAC influenced factors. Each of the
factors is capable of being assessed quantitatively, and, as a whole, represent an indicator
(results) by which organizations can compare their FAC programs with other organizations in the
world. Each factor relates to the optimum FAC Program developed by EPRI and published in
these Fossil Plant FAC Guidelines. It is suggested that an organization or plant make the initial
assessment with data from the last three years of information. Improvements/changes could then
be assessed on an annual basis. The Benchmarking Process will work when applied either to a
single unit/plant or across a utility system. The following factors are assessed:
A. Corporate Mandate for the Organizations FAC Program
As suggested in the EPRI FAC Guideline (Section 1.4), the optimum FAC program requires a
Corporate Mandate signed by the VP or Plant Manager responsible for the fossil plants in the
system or units in the plant. This important factor enquires whether an organization/plant has
such a Mandate, which indicates how the organization/plant will adopt the optimum FAC
program.
B. Prediction and Inspection of Feedwater Systems in Fossil Plants
This important factor relates to the percentage of units (plant or system) where a predictive
analysis (such as EPRIs CHECUP or CHECKWORKS) (see Section 5.1) has been conducted,
and where those predicted susceptible areas have been inspected. This factor has two parts: a)
focuses on the most FAC prone systems in fossil plants in feedwater systems that have all-
ferrous feedwater heaters (here it should be noted that those systems with stainless steel
feedwater heater tubing in both the LP and HP feedwater heaters have the highest priority.
Section 2.2.5), and b) those with mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems (copper alloy tubing in LP
EPRI Licensed Material
Benchmarking an Organizations FAC Program in Conventional Fossil Plants
A-2
and/or HP). An important note here is that the weighting factor is different for all-ferrous
and mixed-metallurgy units.
C. Cycle Chemistry Control of All-ferrous Feedwater Systems
This factor also addresses the most important areas in a Fossil Plant for those systems with all-
ferrous feedwater systems (here again it should be noted that those systems with stainless steel
feedwater heater tubing in both the LP and HP feedwater heaters have the highest priority.
Section 2.2.5). The factor relates to the percentage of these units, that are operating with an
oxidizing feedwater chemistry (AVT(O) or OT) and thus indicating that single-phase FAC
should not be an active corrosion mechanism.
D. Indicator of Corrosion/FAC in All-ferrous Units (plant or system)
The factor relates to the level of iron corrosion products at the economizer inlet as this is a major
indicator of a serious corrosion or FAC problem. This factor can be assessed across a system or
for a plant/unit.
E. Indicator of Corrosion/FAC in Mixed-metallurgy Units (plant or system)
The factor relates to the level of iron corrosion products at the economizer inlet as this is a major
indicator of a serious corrosion or FAC problem. This factor can be assessed across a system or
for a plant/unit.
F. Indicator of Two-phase FAC in the LP Heater Shells (plant or system) (see
Section 2.2.2)
This factor addresses whether an organization has assessed the FAC susceptibility in the heater
shell areas (particularly the LP heater shells, with the lowest LP heater being most prone). This
can be assessed across a system or for a plant/unit. Assessment here requires at least a visual
inspection.
G. Indicator of FAC in the Heater Drain Lines (single- and two-phase FAC (plant
or system) (see Section 2.2.2)
This factor addresses whether an organization has assessed the FAC susceptibility in the drain
lines. Particularly emphasis here is on the drain lines from the lowest HP and LP heaters to the
deaerator and condenser respectively. This can be assessed across a system or for a plant/unit.
Assessment here requires a NDE inspection.
EPRI Licensed Material
Benchmarking an Organizations FAC Program in Conventional Fossil Plants
A-3
Assessment of an Organizations FAC Program
Weighting Factor Points Total
3 A. Corporate FAC Mandate
Do you have a Corporate/Plant FAC
Mandate
o Yes 0
o No 2
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
3 B. Predictions and Inspections of FAC Prone Areas
Percentage of units (plant or system) that have had a
predictive capability applied and have had follow-up NDE inspections at
all predicted critical locations
a) Units with all-ferrous feedwater systems
o 100 % of units 0
o 70 - 99 % 1
o 50 - 69 % 2
o < 50% 3
o No all-ferrous units 0
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
2. b) Units with mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems
o 100 % of units 0
o 50 - 99 % 1
o < 49% 2
o No mixed-metallurgy units 0
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
EPRI Licensed Material
Benchmarking an Organizations FAC Program in Conventional Fossil Plants
A-4
Weighting Factor Points Total
3 C. Cycle Chemistry Control of All-Ferrous Feedwater Systems
What is percentage of units with all-ferrous feedwater systems
that operate with either AVT(O) or OT
o 100 % of units 0
o 70 - 99 % 1
o 50 - 69 % 2
o < 50% 3
o No all-ferrous units 0
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
2 D. Corrosion/FAC in Units with All-Ferrous Feedwater Systems
What is percentage of units with all-ferrous feedwater systems that have
iron levels at the economizer inlet consistently less than 2 ppb during
normal operation
o 100 % of units 0
o 70 - 99 % 1
o 50 - 69 % 2
o < 50% 3
o No all-ferrous units 0
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
2 E. Corrosion/FAC in Units with Mixed-Metallurgy Feedwater Systems
What is percentage of units with mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems that
have iron levels at the economizer inlet consistently less than 5 ppb during
normal operation
o 100 % of units 0
o 50 - 99 % 1
o < 49% 2
o No mixed-metallurgy units 0
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
EPRI Licensed Material
Benchmarking an Organizations FAC Program in Conventional Fossil Plants
A-5
Weighting Factor Points Total
1 F. Corrosion/FAC in LP Heater Shells
What is percentage of units (all-ferrous and mixed-metallurgy) where the
LP heater shell has been at least visually inspected (fiber optics or
physically)
o 100 % of units 0
o 50 - 99 % 1
o < 49% 2
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
1 G. Corrosion/FAC in Drain Lines
What is percentage of units (all-ferrous and mixed-metallurgy) where the
heater drain lines have been inspected using NDE
o 100 % of units 0
o 50 - 99 % 1
o < 49% 2
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
Total
EPRI Licensed Material
Benchmarking an Organizations FAC Program in Conventional Fossil Plants
A-6
Rating Systems as a Function of Feedwater Metallurgy
Rating System for an Organization with both All-ferrous and Mixed-
Metallurgy Feedwater Systems
Excellent/World Class < 7
Very good 8-12
Good 13-19
Average 20-32
Below Average > 33
Rating System for an Organization with only All-ferrous Feedwater
Systems
Excellent/World Class 6
Very good 7-12
Good 13-18
Average 19-29
Below Average > 30
Rating System for an Organization with only Mixed-Metallurgy
Feedwater Systems
Excellent/World Class 6
Good 7-10
Average 11-14
Below Average > 15
EPRI Licensed Material
B-1
B
BENCHMARKING AN ORGANIZATIONS HEAT
RECOVERY STEAM GENERATOR DEPENDABILITY
PROGRAM
Introduction
EPRIs Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Tube Failure Reduction Program/Cycle
Chemistry Improvement Program (HTFRP/CCIP) is conducted at organizations combined cycle
plants. Alternatively it can be conducted at a central location so that staff members from a
number of plants can attend. The HTFRP/CCIP provides information on:
HRSG tube failures (HTF) mechanisms and root causes
Cycle chemistry influenced HTF
Thermal transient/cycling influenced HTF including FAC
How to optimize the cycle chemistry in the feedwater and evaporator circuits to avoid HTF
How to identify the locations where thermally driven HTF could occur
How to monitor thermal transients.
Overall the program is designed to help an organization avoid HTF and to identify the precursors
to damage and HTF.
Organizations frequently ask how good or bad is their overall HRSG dependability program on a
world ranking. To answer these questions, EPRI developed the HRSG Dependability
Benchmarking Process.
Much thought has been given to the Benchmarking topic, and the current assessment approach
was developed during the initial 20 HTFRP/CCIP workshops conducted with members of
EPRIs HRSG Dependability Program. It will provide an assessment for an organization of its
overall approach to HRSG reliability.
The Benchmarking process is to assess overall HRSG Dependability. The FAC factors are B, C,
D, E, and F.
EPRI Licensed Material
Benchmarking an Organizations Heat Recovery Steam Generator Dependability Program
B-2
Assessment of an Organizations HRSG Dependability
Weighting Factor Points Total
3 A. Total number of HTF over the last three years
0 0
1-2 1
3-5 2
5-10 3
>10 4
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
3 B. Number of chemically influenced HTF over
last three years
(Flow-accelerated corrosion, corrosion fatigue,
hydrogen damage, acid phosphate corrosion,
caustic gouging, pitting)
0 0
1-2 1
3-5 2
5-10 3
>10 4
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
3 C. Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation and Control.
What percentage of the EPRI Core level do you have?
See Table B-1 for Core Level.
100% 0
90-99% 1
70-89% 2
<70% 3
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
2 D. Is reducing agent used in the feedwater (during
Operation and/or shutdown)?
Yes 1
No 0
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
EPRI Licensed Material
Benchmarking an Organizations Heat Recovery Steam Generator Dependability Program
B-3
Weighting Factor Points Total
2 E. What is level of iron in feedwater (generally
during steady operation)?
<5 ppb 0
5-10 ppb 1
11-20 ppb 2
>20 ppb 3
Dont know 3
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
2 F. What is level of iron in LP Drum (generally
during steady operation)?
<5 ppb 0
5-10 ppb 1
11-20 ppb 2
>20 ppb 3
Dont know 3
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
2 G. Has temperature monitoring been conducted
on LP Economizer, Superheater and Reheater
during Startup, Shutdown and Operation to
identify damaging thermal transients
(using specially installed thermocouples)
Yes, all three 0
Yes, on two 1
Yes, on one 2
No 3
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
1 H. Do you have written Action Plans to address
Root causes of HTF or potential HTF?
Yes 0
No 1
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
EPRI Licensed Material
Benchmarking an Organizations Heat Recovery Steam Generator Dependability Program
B-4
Weighting Factor Points Total
1 I. Do you have written Action Plans to address
damaged tubing or potential damage tubing?
Yes 0
No 1
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
Total
Rating System
World Class <5
Very Good 6-10
Above Average 11-25
Average Program 26-40
Below Average Program 41-45
Poor 46-55
EPRI Licensed Material
Benchmarking an Organizations Heat Recovery Steam Generator Dependability Program
B-5
Table B-1
Supplementary Information for Factor C
Core Monitoring Parameters (Minimum level of instruments for all plants/units)
(all instruments should be on-line and continuously monitored)
Parameters Measurement Locations
Cation Conductivity Condensate Pump Discharge
Condensate Polisher Effluent (if installed)
Feedwater (or economizer inlet)
Drum Blowdown (each drum)
Main steam or reheat steam
Specific Conductivity Makeup
Drum Blowdown (each drum)
pH Drum Blowdown (each drum)
Dissolved Oxygen Condensate Pump Discharge
Feedwater (or economizer inlet)
Drum Downcomer (Drum unit on OT)
Sodium Main steam or reheat steam
Phosphate Drum Blowdown (each drum using a
phosphate treatment)
Silica Makeup
Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
2005 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power Research
Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
TOGETHER...SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America
Programs: 1008082
Boiler Life and Availability Improvement
Boiler and Turbine Steam and Cycle Chemistry
Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Dependability
SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE
WRAPPING MATERIAL.
BY OPENING THIS SEALED PACKAGE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO
NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED PACKAGE TO EPRI
AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE REFUNDED.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE
EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this package
only for your own benefit and the benefit of your organization. This means that the following may use this package:
(I) your company (at any site owned or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or other related entities; and
(III) a consultant to your company or related entities, if the consultant has entered into a contract agreeing not to
disclose the package outside of its organization or to use the package for its own benefit or the benefit of any party
other than your company.
This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement between
most U.S. EPRI member utilities and EPRI. Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility License
Agreement may get one on request.
2. COPYRIGHT
This package, including the information contained in it, is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is protected by
United States and international copyright laws. You may not, without the prior written permission of EPRI, reproduce,
translate or modify this package, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare any derivative work based on this package.
3. RESTRICTIONS
You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this package to any person or organization, or use the information
contained in this package, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unless
such use is with the prior written permission of EPRI.You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized
disclosure or use of this package. Except as specified above, this agreement does not grant you any right to patents,
copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks or any other intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of
this package.
4. TERM AND TERMINATION
This license and this agreement are effective until terminated.You may terminate them at any time by destroying this
package. EPRI has the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you fail to comply with any
term or condition of this agreement. Upon any termination you may destroy this package, but all obligations of
nondisclosure will remain in effect.
5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION 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 PACKAGE, 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 PARTYS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS PACKAGE
IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERS 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
PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS PACKAGE.
6. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this package, and
you agree not to export or re-export this package or any related technical data in any form without the appropri-
ate United States and foreign government approvals.
7. CHOICE OF LAW
This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place entire-
ly in California between California residents.
8. INTEGRATION
You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement
between you and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. No
waiver, variation or different terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior writ-
ten consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with
major locations in Palo Alto, CA, and Charlotte, NC,
was established in 1973 as an independent, non-profit
center for public interest energy and environmental
research. EPRI brings together member organizations,
the Institute's scientists and engineers, and other
leading experts to work collaboratively on solutions
to the challenges of electric power. These solutions
span nearly every area of power generation, delivery,
and use, including health, safety, and environment.
EPRI's members represent over 90% of the electricity
generated in the United States. International
participation represents over 10% of EPRI's total
R&D program.
Together...shaping the future of electricity
Export Control Restrictions
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted
with the specific understanding and requirement that
responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable
U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations is being under-
taken by you and your company. This includes an obligation
to ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder who
is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted
access under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and
regulations. In the event you are uncertain whether you or
your company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI
Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it is your
obligation to consult with your companys legal counsel to
determine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may
make available on a case by case basis an informal assessment
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 obligation 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 Property hereunder that may be in violation
of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or regulations.