How to boost HRSG performance and increase your plants bottom line

Posted on May 22, 2013 by Team CCJ

1. Failed baffle was designed to prevent turbine exhaust gas from bypassing heat-transfer surface by flowing between adjacent panels

2. Sidewall baffles, relatively easy to install, prevent gas from taking the path of least resistance between the tube bundle and inner liner

3. Header baffles stop hot gas from bypassing the tube bundles via the crawl space The performance thieves lurking in many heat-recovery steam generators sometimes can be eliminated with relatively little effort and at low cost, Lester

Stanley, PE, told owner/operators attending HRST Incs HRSG Spotlight Session at the 7F Users Group annual conference being held this week at the Hyatt Regency, Greenville, SC. The ideas and experience offered by Stanley and colleague Bryan Craig, PE, during the four-hour workshop on Monday morning were of high interest, judging from the questions and floor discussion generated. That these attendees were a motivated group there was no doubt. All had to arrive a day early, pay an extra fee, and be in their seats by 8 a.m. to get maximum benefit from the program. Interestingly, there were about twice the number of users participating in the HRSG Spotlight Session than there were playing in the annual 7F Golf Tournament, which was held at the same time. HRSGs and steam turbines have been the book-ends for the industrys most successful meeting of frame gas-turbine owner/operators for many years. Prior to 2011, the HRSTs F-class workshops covered a wide variety of topics in nominal 15-minute increments. For the last three years, the boiler experts have focused on three subjects during each session to provide the level of detail necessary to facilitate implementation of initiatives suggested for improving efficiency, availability, and safety, while reducing emissions. This years topics were the following: * HRSG performance thieves. * Advanced inspection techniques. * Inspection and maintenance of HRSG inlet and firing ducts, and gas-turbine diffuser ducts. These subject areas were natural extensions of material covered in 2012 (superheater and reheater fatigue, economizer cracking, and drum-nozzle cracking) and in 2011 (flow-accelerated corrosion, desuperheater issues, and steam-drum cracking). The electronic links provided in this article connect to CCJ ONsites coverage of the 2011 and 2012 presentations, bringing the three years worth of interrelated material together for you. Stanley focused on these four performance thieves during his opening presentation: * Gas baffling. * Gas-side fouling * LP economizer recirculation. * Buoyancy instability/vapor locking. Baffles force turbine exhaust gas through the tube bundles, maximizing heat transfer and performance. Even gaps of only 2 in. between adjacent tube panels, between tube panels and the inner liner, and between headers in the crawl-space area can cause significant losses, Stanley told the group. Baffle integrity in evaporator and economizer sections is particularly important, he said.

Damaged or missing baffling is easy to identify during a gas-side inspection (Fig 1) and relatively easy and inexpensive to correct with standard carbon-steel components and conventional welding techniques (Figs 2 and 3). Perhaps the most costly component of baffle repair and/or replacement is the installation of scaffolding. Therefore, it makes good sense to do this work when cleaning tube panels, which also requires scaffolding. Stanley noted that thermal performance loss is not the only adverse impact of ineffective baffling; it has been known to contribute to flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) as well. Also, when baffles in the firing-duct area are not in good condition, duct-burner flames can be disrupted and tubes and the SCR can suffer thermal damageall in addition to performance loss. Though baffle work is relatively simple to do, if your unit has excessive gaps in many locations, the plant maintenance budget might not be able to swallow the whole refurbishment project in one gulp. Stanley discussed one such case where performance modeling provided justification and prioritization of the work. Some gap locations create more performance decrease than others, he said. In the realworld example described, Stanley said that the annual benefit of coil-to-coil baffle fixes in all six access lanes of an F-class HRSG was about $1 million. However, baffle restoration in only two of the lanes produced 60% of that benefit making the investment decision an easy one. In this case, the plant reported a 2 MW increase in output after repairs were made. Gas-side fouling, as most attendees knew, can be caused by one or more of the following: rust, ammonia salts, sulfur compounds, and liberated insulation. They also were aware that the consequences of fouling include an increase in gasturbine backpressure, a thermal-efficiency penalty, and the release of particulates up the stack, especially at startup. But many were not sure of the financial impact of fouling. Stanley worked up a short calculation that showed gas-turbine power production decreased by 0.105% for each 1-in.-H2O increase in backpressure. For a 7FA with a nominal rating of 183 MW at ISO conditions, this translates to a de rate of 192 kW. In addition, fouling reduces HRSG thermal efficiency because it reduces heat transfer and steam production. Someone asked about the optimal time for cleaning fouled heat-transfer surfaces. Stanley said this was an economic decision and could be different for every plant. He added that high backpressure often drives the decision, to avoid the consequences of an unnecessary turbine trip. Next, the boiler expert suggested that plants develop their thermal-performance and backpressure yardsticks to determine the optimal time for cleaning. Stanley pointed out that rust is relatively easy to remove, SCR ammonia salts not so. Regarding the latter, he warned about the difficulties in cleaning tube bundles after they had bridged over that is, totally packed to the fin OD with ammonia salts. Clean before crisis, Stanley urged. The next 10 minutes or so was dedicated to a review of the types of cleaning, the effectiveness of various media, and the advantages of so-called deep cleaninga process developed by HRST Inc. Stanley said that, in general, best results in the cleaning of fouled finned-tube surfaces have been achieved using CO2 and compressed-air blasting, perhaps in series. Water deluge or hydroblasting can do

the job in some instances, he continued, but waste collection and disposal would likely militate against the use of water.

4. Corrosion is controlled in some LP economizers by recirculating a portion of the water exiting that heat exchanger back to the inlet to stay above the dewpoint temperature

5. A more efficient recirculation scheme is to recirculate warm water from an intermediate header, if installed

6. The output penalty associated with recirculation may be such that replacement of a corroded harp is the more economic approach The next performance thief Stanley discussed was LP economizer recirculation. Bryan Craig wrote in a recent issue of HRSTs Boiler Biz that recirculation often is used to raise the temperature

of condensate entering the LP economizer above the turbine-exhaust dew point to minimize corrosion of panels in the back end of the unit. However, this comes with a cost. Recirculating water flow to increase the inlet temperature reduces overall output from the HRSG in a small, but measurable way, he stated. The amount of performance reduction depends on the water-temperature set point, and also the location from which the recirc flow is taken. Some LP economizers recirculate a portion of the flow from the economizer outlet back to the inlet to achieve temperature control (Fig 4); others recirculate from an intermediate point within the economizer, design permitting (Fig 5). HRST engineers have concluded that if recirc must be used, it is more efficient to take the flow from an intermediate point than from the economizer outlet. The temperature set point also comes into play: Reducing the set point improves efficiency. Craig used Fig 6 to illustrate this point. The chart is based on a typical F-class HRSG with a 12-row LP economizer and a condenser hotwell temperature of 105F. If recirc flow is taken from the economizer outlet, reducing the temperature set point from 140F to 130F increases steam-turbine output by 160 kW. Assuming the plant operates 5000 hr/yr and is paid $50/MWh for the electricity it produces, the 10-deg-F reduction in the set point is worth $40,000 yearly. For the 130F set point, extracting recirc flow from the midpoint of the economizer increases steamer output by another 180 kW, more than doubling the annual revenue gain to $85,000. Eliminating recirc altogether, and allowing cold water to enter the LP economizer, increases steam-turbine production by 330 kW, which is worth about $82,000 per year. This suggests it may make sense to forego recirculation and plan on replacing the last one, two, or three rows of LP economizer surface every eight years or so, give or take a couple of years. Also worthwhile considering: The first time you replace the back-end surface, switch to an alloy material suitable for the wet environment and eliminate the need to do it a second. Buoyancy instability. Stanley began the final segment of his presentation by reviewing the performance loss caused by buoyancy instability in panelized economizers. Nearly all economizers have some down-flowing tubes, he said; most have down-flow in half the tubes. Buoyancy instability causes flow to stagnate in some of the down-flow tubes, or to reverse direction. When water does not flow as designed, the effective heat-transfer surface is reduced and heat absorption decreases. Also, stagnant and reverse-flow tubes become hotter than neighboring tubes increasing the level of stress. The risk of this happening is greatest at low loads. Hundreds of thermal cycles can occur within a day, leading to fatigue failures in less time than you might think. Modification of flow circuitry can correct the issue. If a performance assessment advises that buoyancy instability is a problem early in the life of a unit, changing the location of splitter plates in the upper header should be considered to optimize the flow pattern. Stanley said the relocation of splitter plates is not as difficult as it might appear. In some cases, he said, it can be easier than plugging economizer tubes.

Buoyancy instability in return-bend economizers causes water in some circuits to flow very slowly or not at all, others to flow quickly. If the gas temperature is above the saturation temperature, stagnant tubes will vapor-lockthat is a steam bubble trapped in the return bend will block flow, generally until unit load is high enough to clear it. It is difficult to modify existing systems to correct this problem.

HRSG Gas-side Cleaning

The dollars and sense of clean boiler tubes

Fouled finned-tube bundles in heat-recovery steam generators (HRSGs) can penalize your bottom line by hundreds of thousands of dollars on an annual basis, so it makes good sense to call in a qualified cleaning contractorperiodically (every year or two) or when pressure drop reaches what you decide is the action required level. According to Keith Boye of Precision Iceblast Corp (PIC), Wallace, Mich, every additional one-half inch (water column) of pressure drop through a typical F-class HRSG reduces your bottom line by about $100,000 per annumdepending on the price of fuel. There are no guarantees on how much a given cleaning will reduce your backpressure, but a rule of thumb is that a proper cleaning can recover half of the increase in pressure drop over the as-designed value. An informal poll by the editors of users attending a recent industry meeting revealed that owner/operators were most likely to contract for cleaning when the pressure drop reaches about 3 in. H2O above the as-new delta p. Payback on the investment should be three or four months at that point, they said, and typically acceptable to management. The users generally agreed that corrosion products are relatively easy to remove from finned-tube panels, provided theres sufficient access space. By comparison, ammonia salts are difficult. The biggest challenges typically are found at plants not regulated on slip, where there may be a temptation to overfeed ammonia as a way to assure that NOx emissions are maintained within permit limits. Plants burning gas with aboveaverage levels of sulfur also run the risk of severe fouling. What cleaning medium? Contractors often rely on dry ice to remove deposits, sometimes high-pressure air, water, or grit blasting. A few plants have installed sonic horns to extend cleaning intervals, but they have not be successful in all cases. Several users warned against the use of water because it can turn otherwise manageable deposits into concrete. Plus, water can contribute to corrosion of the HRSG floor, damage insulation, and shorten the lives of penetration seals. Identifying the proper cleaning medium for your plant requires some research. Two variables particularly important to decision-making are foulant tenacity and the extent of fouling, Patrick Walker of HRST Inc, Eden Prairie, Minn, told the editors. You want to know how tough it is to remove and how deep the fouling penetrates each heat-transfer section. Then you can develop a procedure for its removal and an operating plan that would slow the deposition rate. A recommended first step is foulant characterization. Not all foulants are created equal, Walker reminded. A thorough gas-side inspection and pressure-drop evaluation are an important part of your research. Comparing the latter to the delta p after cleaning will put hard numbers on the value of clean tubes. A before/after analysis also will help you pre dict the optimal time for the next cleaning.

Like foulants, not all cleaning contractors are created equal. There is some technology and engineering, in addition to fouling science, that you should know about before selecting a contractor (sidebar). For example, tube spreadersso-called alignment barsdeveloped and patented by HRST enable deep penetration of cleaning wands into a tube bundle to access as much heat-transfer surface as possible. Tube spreading is not for amateurs. You need boiler design experience to calculate tube stresses associated with spreading. Get too aggressive opening up cleaning lanes and you can have real problems. HRST also designs its own compressed-air nozzles to maximize cleaning effectiveness. It is not unusual for the company to customize cleaning heads to accommodate a boilers idiosyncrasies. A team approach to cleaning may beget best results, agreed Boye and Walker. When their companies work together, PIC brings to the table the cleaning know-how, HRST the engineered solutions. For simple jobs involving shallow tube banksthat is, four tube rows deep or lessmost traditional surface blasting methods provide favorable results, unless the foulant is particularly tenacious. Walker described surface blasting as a cleaning method where the lance doesnt penetrate the surface or plane of the tube field. What you can see, you should be able to clean, Walker said.

In tube banks that are deep or have very close tube spacing, it is important to have tools to assure successlike those described above. A step-by-step plan is important for achieving top results. The information required to develop a plan might come from photos taken by HRST during a recent unit inspection. If those are not available, PIC will do a gasside walkdown to determine the degree of fouling, to decide where spreading is necessary, etc. HRST gets design details from boiler drawings to customize cleaning heads and provide input to procedure development.

Cleaning procedure
The procedure HRST and PIC prepared for cleaning a 10-yr-old, F-class, double-wide HRSG in the Southeast illustrates the level of planning required for success. The tube bundles downstream of the SCRs ammonia injection point were scheduled for cleaning (Fig 1). The assessment by HRST/PIC indicated that a combination of CO2 blasting and deep cleaning with high-pressure air would accomplish the owners objectives. The design of this HRSG is characterized by staggered 1.5- and 2-in.-diam tubes with varying fin heights. Tube length nominally is 70 ft. The tube bundle closest to the stack is 12 rows deep, the next box is 14 tube rows deep, and the final two are 15 tube rows deep. According to previous inspections, the majority of the debris present is rust flakes. CO2 blasting is relatively straightforward. The cleaning cycle begins in the stack and works opposite of gas flow towards the HP evaporator 1 face at the extreme right in Fig 1. Work begins at Level 1 and proceeds to Level 6 and back down to Level 1 (Fig 2)two passes of dry-ice blasting for each of the eight tube-bundle faces. Then the process is repeated moving by blasting each face in turn from the HP evaporator to the stack.

Best practice: When blasting, follow a standard cleaning pattern to be sure debris is removed from each tube. Do not randomly move the cleaning wand all over the tube face. Deep cleaning takes more time than blasting. It begins on the upstream face of HP evaporator 1 at Levels 6 and 5. When done, a technical advisor (TA) checks cleaning effectiveness, making changes in procedure, air pressure, and/or cleaning heads as necessary. Then the remaining sections of the HP evaporator 1s upstream face are deep-cleaned. Theres another TA check at this point, before moving equipment to the next downstream access lane. The procedure is repeated for each of the remaining seven faces. Alignment bars are inserted into the face of tube bundle being cleaned, level by level, at a location roughly equidistant between the tube tie above and the one below. The technique

is illustrated in Figs 3 and 4. Once tubes are spread on one level, the side wand uses high-pressure air to clean above and below each alignment bar as it is moved deeper into the tube field. Penetration of the tube bundles should be five or six tubes deep from either side, meaning foulant will be removed from most tubes. Next, the end-blow wand is used in areas tough to reach with the side-blow wandsuch as near tube ties, around any physical interference, etc. When a given level is finished, alignment bars are removed and moved

down to the next level. At the end of the job, be sure to go up and down the face of each tube bundle to verify cleanliness. Bring along a borescope to look deep into the tube bundles. The editors spoke with the plant supervisor responsible for overseeing the tube cleaning project to learn more about the benefits accrued. Unfortunately, with other work going on, including change-out of the control software, as well as inconsistent run time, definitive performance numbers couldnt be compiled.

A photo record of another cleaning project illustrates the qualitative effectiveness of a combination CO2 blast and HP-air deep cleaning program. Fig 5 presents the challenge, Fig 6 shows how CO2 eliminates debris at the face, Fig 7 shows stakes in place to enable deep cleaning, Fig 8 confirms the effectiveness of deep cleaning, and Fig 9 shows debris at the bottom of the unit piled more than 18 in. deep in places. Upwards of 7 tons of rust and other debris were carted away from this HRSG. You can do back-of-the-envelope calculations on the economic value of tube cleaning using the following information from GE report GER-3567H, which states that for a 7EA a 4 in. H2O exhaust pressure drop over design translates to:

* Power output loss of 0.42%. * Heat-rate increase of 0.42. * Stack temperature rise of about 2 deg F. The maintenance manager for a 7FA-powered combined cycle said he believed the numbers were about the same for his unit. He added that the backpressure alarm is set at 20 in. H2O on his turbines and that they trip at 24 in. CCJ

2011 Outage Handbook Flow-Accelerated Corrosion

Lessons relearned
by David Addison, Thermal Chemistry Ltd (New Zealand) (All diagrams and photographs are posted at the end of the article.)

Although the mechanism of flow-accelerated corrosion in gasturbine-based combined-cycle and cogeneration plants generally has been understood for decades, FAC remains one of the major safety issues for plant management and personnel. It can occur across the feedwater system, from the condensate pump to the economizers and LP evaporator sections of heat-recovery steam generators. It is equally dangerous in both single- and two-phase flow regions. FAC is the leading cause of availability loss in HRSGs and is the major damage mechanism in air-cooled condensers, which have been specified for many new combined cycles in the arid West. In virtually all of these systems, cycle chemistry influences and, in some cases, controls FAC. Clearly, FAC should not be considered just a failure mechanism. It also is a major cause of cycle corrosion, contributing to higher levels of transported corrosion products. These corrosion products, in turn, act as the centers for many other failure and damage mechanisms. The bottom line: Recognition, control, and alleviation of FAC should be one of the most important management-supported aspects of operating combined-cycle and cogeneration plants powered by gas turbines. Powerplant owner/operators had the opportunity to participate last summer in the first international conference on FAC in fossil and combined-cycle plants, organized by Dr Barry Dooley, Kevin Shields, and Steve Shulder of Structural Integrity Associates Inc and a blue-ribbon panel of advisors (sidebar). It was conducted to provide users broad and expert experience in all aspects of FAC.

More than 175 participants represented about 100 organizations from 21 countries including utilities, research organizations, universities, manufacturers, suppliers, and consultants. The high level of expertise that permeated the group was conducive to lively interaction, robust debate, and productive networking discussions. The technical program consisted of 40 papers presented by researchers, plant operators, and service organizations. The goal of the meeting was to review, document, and transfer technology on the most recent developments in understanding (1) the mechanisms and root causes of FAC, (2) the management tools and approaches to mitigate its effects, (3) predictive processes, (4) cycle chemistry, (5) nondestructive examination (NDE) techniques and assessment technologies, and (5) the application of permanent solutions.By design, the conference was linked with FAC2010, a meeting focusing on FAC in nuclear power stations organized and conducted by the French utility EdF. The latter was held in Lyon in May, a month before its fossil/combined-cycle counterpart in Washington, DC. Attendees participating in both events helped to connect the knowledge from the fossil and nuclear areas.The second international conference on FAC in fossil and combined-cycle plants is planned by Dooley and his Structural Integrity colleagues for early spring 2013, perhaps a month or two before the nuclear FAC meeting scheduled again for May in France. Write bdooley@structint.com to be placed on the mailing list for meeting updates as they become available. FAC management Issues related to flow-acceleratedcorrosion are in evidence globally andaffect nuclear, conventional fossilfiredplants, and combined-cycle generatingfacilities. Think of FAC as atwo-stage problem: initial componentfailure and the consequential damagefrom the generation, transport,and deposition of the resulting corrosionproducts in the higher-pressurestages of the Rankine cycle.

The physical location of FACmakes the affected pressure partsusceptible to failure (Figs 1, 2). Thisis caused by internal wall thinning oflow-chromium-content carbon steel,which occurs because the magnetitelayer dissolves when exposed to thetemperature, velocity, chemical, andgeometric factors associated withFAC. Failure of pressure parts results inwater/steam leaks, personnel risks,damage to adjacent plant equipment,and the financial losses associatedwith a plant shutdown. Secondary to the actual FAC related failures is the longer-termissue of corrosion-product transport,which often is overlooked by powerproducers. Iron removed primarily bydissolution during the FAC process istransported into the higher-pressureand higher-temperature sections ofthe HRSGtypically from the preheaterto the HP economizer and HPevaporator. The higher temperatures and pressuresof the HP sections cause the ironto precipitate and deposit as a porousoxide (magnetite) on heat-transfersurfaces. The oxide layer enables theconcentration of corrodents and contaminantssuch as chloridewhichcan enter the steam/water cycle viacondenser tube leaks, demineralizerupsets, etc. If corrodents enter thecycle, the porous oxide layer allowsunder-deposit corrosion mechanismsto proceed rapidly. Pressure-part failuresare a likely result. Management of FAC risks is alife-of-plant issue and not a one-timeproblem that can be fixed and thenforgotten about. As conference attendeeslearned, the top utilities worldwidetypically rely on several keyactions that when conducted togetherresult in effective FAC management. They include the following:

o Prepare a best-practices project/HRSG technical specification tomitigate FAC risk at the designstage. o Implement a best practices program for cycle chemistry atplants under construction andin operation. It
should specifysuch things as (1) avoiding use of reducing agents/oxygen scavengersfor all-ferrous plants,(2) correct pH levels for operationsand lay-up, (3) appropriate instrumentation, etc.

o Have in place a documented,methodical, and robust inspection program to detect early signs ofFAC and
to allow remedial actionbefore failures occur. This should include repeatable and thoroughcorrosionproduct sampling.

o All aspects of FAC monitoring andcontrol should be documented,signed-off by senior management,and

managed by accountable, technically competent staff personnel with sufficient budgetary support. The science of FAC Structural Integritys Dooley, the first speaker, set the tone for the conference. He opened the meeting with a clear and authoritative state-of-the-current-science address which summarized what is known about FAC and the issues itstill presents to conventional andcombined-cycle powerplant owners and operators. One of Dooleys key points, summarized in the previous section, wasthat FAC is a two-stage problem:material loss leads to pressure-part failures and the corrosion productsproduced migrate to and deposit in HP sections of the steam/water cycle.LP sections of HRSGs, and to a lesser degree the IP stages, are susceptible to FAC damage because of their relatively low operating temperatures and conventional carbon-steel construction (Figs 3-5). While industry knowledge regarding FAC has grown and some generating companies are effectively minimizing its adverse impacts, Dooley said, others continue to repeat past mistakes. Proof: More than 70% of the fossil-fired plants worldwide are still reporting failures caused by FAC. He urged attendees to meet the challenges of FAC head on by conducting a root cause analysis and then making appropriate changes to water treatment programs and O&M procedures at afflicted plants.In his concluding remarks, Dooley suggested that a global FAC working group be established to extend the science and bring together related work in the nuclear, conventional fossil, and combined-cycle sectors of the industry. Prof Derek Listers (Univ of New Brunswick) Reflections on FAC Mechanisms provided a wealth of knowledge and experience on the chemical and physical mechanisms of FAC, based on research conducted at the university and by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. Relevant parallels to thermal plants were covered.

Two key takeaways from Listers work are the significant and rapid inhibiting effects that the chromium content of pressure-part materials and slightly elevated dissolved-oxygen levels in condensate/feedwater have on FAC attack. Stan Walkers (EPRI) The NDE Options for FAC made the following key points regarding the value of nondestructive examination (NDE) for identifying and quantifying FAC damage:

o Detects FAC before a failure occurs. o Helps assess remaining component and plant life.n Assists with plant risk-based assessments. o Helps determine other potential FAC locations.
Next, Walker described the following technologies commercially available to inspect for FAC: Ultrasonic thickness (UT) is the most common NDE technique for pipes of 2 in. diam and larger. Plant must be shut down and insulation removed to conduct UT; plus, inspection grid lines should be painted on the pipe parallel and perpendicular to flow. Repeatability from inspection to inspection is important to assure accurate trending of wall loss. Radiography often is the choice for inspecting pipes smaller than 2 in., although sometimes it is used for pipe up to 6 in. diam. Advantages over UT: Can be used through insulation and close to welds; scaffolding typically is not needed. However, personnel must clear the area before radiographs are taken and this can be inconvenient during outages. Digital radiography is increasingly being used for FAC assessments. Pulsed eddy current is an excellent screening tool for piping because it can be used through insulation and while the unit is in service. However, it may underestimate wall loses and usually is not used to determine FAC rates. Ultrasonic long-range guided waves is another rapid and inexpensive screening technology. But it requires insulation removal. Overall, Walker concluded, there is no single best NDE technique for detecting and assessing FAC damage. Some techniques are for long-range screening to verify that failure is not imminent; others, geared for sensitivity, are used to determine the exact size, location, and nature of damage.The optimal option is determined after considering available time and funding, access restrictions, technician skills, etc. Most important for accurate results are the use of proficient technicians and a thorough understanding of the of the limitations of the alternative inspection techniques.

Fossil plant experience Four sessions at the Arlington (Va) meeting focused on FAC experiences and programs at conventional fossilfired steam plants and combined cycles. One of the first speakers was Des McInnes, Tarong Power Station, Queensland, Australia, who summarized two decades of FAC experience at the conventional coal-fired plant. Highlights included the following: (1) significant FAC problems detected early in life, (2) LP heater replacements to remove copper alloys, (3) cycle chemistry changes to oxygenated treatment, (4) ongoing corrosion-product monitoring, and (5) plant inspections. McInnes suggested inspecting components whenever accessible during maintenance activities. Gary Rogles presented the details of AmerenUEs FAC inspection program from 1996 onward. Initially, the program was limited in scope, but in 2006 it was updated, expanded, and formalized because of increased FAC awareness. Units were ranked in order of FAC risk and re-inspected in priority order. Rogles discussed the successful use of pulsed eddy current inspections of large-bore piping while plants were operating, and UT on smaller-bore pipes with the units offline, to assess loss of wall thickness. He also mentioned the use of handheld x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis to determine the chromium content of pipe materials. Paul Waldrop described the development and implementation of PacifiCorps high-energy-piping (HEP) management and inspection program, including FAC management, across the utilitys fleet of conventional steam and combined-cycle units. The program, backed by senior management, provides clear directions to responsible individuals.Further, development of a central database of documents and inspection results, and use of standard NDE inspection terms, assures comparable results across all sites and contractors.

Waldrop said the program helps plant managers understand and identify HEP and FAC issues and to secure the necessary funding to correct deficienciesthereby improving safety and reliability, and reducing plant risk profiles. Last lowers insurance premiums. The AmerenUE program identified many thinned components, allowing their replacement before failures occurred. Key problem areas were feedwater-heater drains and dump piping, and reheater and superheater spray-valve stations. AEPs Approach to FAC, presented by Jeff Anderson, covered the utilitys experiences with FAC management issues across its coal and gas fleets. The companys FAC program is managed at the corporate level by a three-person team: AEPs head chemist, a program engineer, and a piping engineer. The team identifies specific locations that it wants inspected while empowering plant staffs to go beyond those based on risk assessments. AEP has inspected more than 3500 locations on 63 units in the last five years, 30% of which had indications of FAC. Lessons learned include the following:

o o o o o o o o

Inspect at least two pipe diameters downstream of any fitting. Identical systems do not often have identical FAC. Seldom-used drain and bypass lines can have FAC. FAC can occur in straight pipe away from fittings. FAC may not occur at a constant rate. Younger plants may have more FAC than older plants. FAC temperature range is greater than most people might expect. Spot UT checks do not equal an inspection.

Anderson stressed the importance of a reporting system to reach inspection goals and to provide clear, effective communication with senior management. He added that the empowerment of plant staff to choose inspection locations within a structure framework provides dividends of improved site understanding of FAC and allows for identification of plant-specific issues. Annual training is conducted to maintain FAC program awareness. Anderson recommended that this activity include discussion of near miss incidents to improve learning and understanding; also, that the issues identified by near misses be incorporated into the FAC management plan. Constellation Energys Albert Olszewski described a program to gather baseline FAC data on a combinedcycle plant placed in layup in 2003 (85% complete); construction was restarted in 2008 after a change in ownership. UT thickness checks and XRF composition analysis provided a baseline for future FAC inspections. System chemistry was optimized during the layup period as well, to minimize FAC risk. Originally, an AVT(R) water treatment program was planned. But that was switched to AVT(O) and the oxygen scavenger eliminated. The feedwater pH setpoint was raised up to pH 10-10.2 using ammonia and iron testing was conducted. Bud McArthur Jr and Tom Gilchrist discussed the history of FAC at Tri-State G&T Assn Inc over the last two decades. The utilitys first FAC failure occurred in an economizer header stub at its coal -fired Craig Generating Station 20 years ago. The key conclusion from that experience was that while FAC was a proactive activity, unexpected failures made it necessary to initiate an optimized reactive approach involving materials upgrades (higher chromium content) and cycle chemistry improvements. Perhaps the key take-away from all the presentations on utility FAC programs was the importance of effective data management and reporting to the executive corps. The best systems allow for automatic report generation. Specifically, databases should retain plant-specific data and inspection results in an easily searchable format that permits the trending and tracking of information. The consensus view was that management reports should be concise, identify work undertaken, and provide a risk-based analysis with follow-up actions clearly identified. Color coding to identify the various levels of risk was considered particularly beneficial. Keep in mind that without plant management sign-off, remedial-action budgets can not be developed and approved and plant FAC risks will remain.

Air-cooled condensers Increased reliance on air-cooled condensers (ACCs) to conserve water raises the profile of FAC at many new plants. So much so, that an entire session was devoted to FAC in ACCs. Recall that FAC-susceptible carbon steel is the primary material of construction for ACCs, and the fluid conditions two-phase flow and the low pH of the liquid phaseare conducive to metal wastage. The very large heat-transfer surface area of an ACC means significant quantities of iron can be removed from the condenser tubes and headers and transported to, and deposited in, the boiler absent an effective cycle chemistry program. Deposition in conventional boilers and heat-recovery steam generators increases the risk of under-deposit corrosion and subsequent failure of pressure parts. Capital Power ACC FAC Study, presented by Bill Stroman, shared the independent power producers FAC experiences at several ACC-equipped plants in Canada. These facilities were commissioned and operated with a morpholine/hydrazine AVT(R) cycle chemistry program until they were sold in 2006. ACC inspections could not be confirmed and water-chemistry records were poor. After the asset sale, Capital Power switched the plants to an AVT(O) program relying on ammonia to maintain a target pH of 9.2 to 9.3this to optimize condensate polisher operation. A cycle-chemistry monitoring program also was implemented. In 2008-2009, rigorous inspections of the ACCs were conducted and significant two-phase FAC attack was identified. Stroman then outlined the actions taken since 2009 to address the FAC observed. The primary initiative was a change from the ammonia-only feedwater treatment program to a blend of about 20% ammonia and 4% monoethanolamine (MEA). The reason: MEAs different volatility profile than ammonia allows it to increase the pH of the liquid phase of the two-phase turbine exhaust flow and provide additional protection against FAC. Early results have been encouraging and use of the blend has been extended to other plants. Assessment of the blend is ongoing. Presentations on FAC in ACCs also were made by Li Zhigang from Chinas Thermal Power Research Institute and Gary Joy from Australias CS Energy. Joy discussed the issues associated with significant two -phase FAC in the ACC for the 750-MW Kogan Creek supercritical coal-fired plant. Kogan Creek minimized the amount of iron being removed from its ACC by increasing feedwater pH to more than 9.8. This was possible because the plant was commissioned with a condensate polisher capable of ammonia-cycle operation. The benefit of the ammonia cycle is its extended regeneration interval compared to polishers capable of hydrogen-cycle operation only. Joy strongly recommended the use of condensate filters for all ACC-equipped plants to prevent transport of iron released by FAC into the boiler. The optimal filter, he said, is a pleated design capable of being backwashed and rated 5 microns absolute. When specifying an ACC for a new project, several attendees suggested that consideration be given to opting for carbon steel containing sufficient chromium to resist FAC attack. HRSG experience The session of particular interest to attendees involved in the planning and design of new combined-cycle facilities featured presentations by engineers who described their efforts at designing -out FAC from heatrecovery steam generators. Others on the program discussed ways to mitigate FAC issues in operating power generation facilities. Amy Sieben, PE, HRST Inc, Eden Prairie, Minn, profiled five FAC-afflicted HRSGs that she and her colleagues had investigated. Most problems were severe and failure of pressure parts occurred in some cases only three or four years after commissioning (Fig 6, 7). All of these were using oxygen scavengers, contrary to advice by the industrys leading water chemists. Sieben discussed some of the repairs made to correct deficienciesincluding the replacement of nozzles and headers with P11 and P22 (Figs 8, 9). Recall that these materials contain 1% and 2% chromium, respectively, which resists FAC attack. The chromium-rich oxide layer that forms on these materials in boiler service has a very low solubility compared to magnetite in the FAC temperature range.

Other repairs included header replacements to decrease fluid velocities and the use of flow orifices to decrease fluid velocities and flow orifices to balance evaporator flows after design analyses revealed that the orifices had not been installed as planned during construction. Paul Honcoop, NEM bv, Netherlands, suggested that better collaboration between HRSG manufacturers and owner/operators is needed to avoid repeating design practices conducive to FAC and other issues. The statement raised some eyebrows in the room but should not have.Power generators typically have opted for a low-first-cost model that relies most often on an EPC (engineer/procure/construct) contractor to interface with vendors and build and commission a plant to the owners specification. If the owner, or its engineer, does not have access to current operating experience, past omissions and errors in judgment can be repeated in the current specification. Further, business practices involving layers of contractors and warranties that limit the ability to access and inspect the HRSG during the early operation/warranty period, and to interface directly with OEM, are not conducive to expeditious problem identification and resolution.What all this means is that meetings such as the International Conference on FAC provide an important service to the industry by bringing together the OEMs and owner/operators in a collaborative open forum to discuss problems, where they exist, and how to prevent them from recurring. Honcoop described the constraints HRSG designers have regarding FAC mitigation. Temperatures cant be changed, he said, and theres only so much that can be done to limit the effects of turbulence and fluid velocities given todays operating regimes (daily starts, fast ramps, etc). That essentially leaves materials of construction and cycle chemistry as the only practical ways to minimize FAC. NEM provides cycle chemistry guidelines specific to the needs of each plant it supplies an HRSG for and that document is incorporated into the O&M manual. The company does not recommend the use of oxygen scavengers, in line with current EPRI guidelines. Structural Integritys Dooley returned to the podium to present Flow-Accelerated Corrosion in HRSGs, a paper he developed with Bob Anderson of Florida-based Competitive Power Resources, which summarized FAC assessments the pair made on 19 boilers worldwide. These assessments provide a clear picture of exactly where the weaknesses are in addressing FAC. Dooley pointed out that the assessments prove FAC and under-deposit corrosion are global generic HRSG issues. He made the following recommendations for the control of FAC in heat-recovery steam generators:

o Specify AVT(O) to control single-phase FAC in the feed system. The use of oxidizing environments to
control single-phase FAC is well established and understood in the industry (Fig 10).

o Elevate pH to control two-phase FAC in evaporator tube bundles. The recommended level is 9.8 or
higher. Single-phase FAC must be controlled first, with two-phase FAC held in check by addition of sodium hydroxide or tri-sodium phosphate to provide solid alkalization to the evaporators. However, in HRSGs where the LP evaporator is used to supply attemperation water or feedwater to the IP and HP circuits, solid alkalis are not an option for increasing pH.

o Robust and reliable monitoring of total iron is required to ensure iron levels of less than 2 ppb in the
feedwater and less than 5 ppb in the evaporators.

o A formal FAC management plan must be developed and implemented.Get the important details of
Dooleys presentation at www.ccj-online.com by clicking Archives on the tool bar near the top of the home page, clicking 1Q/2009 on the archives page, and clicking HRSG assessments identify trends. . . on the cover of the issue. Joe Schroeder, Nooter/Eriksen Inc, Fenton, Mo, presented on how OEMs design HRSGs to minimize FAC issues over the lives of the units provided they are operated correctly. He began by saying that N/Es design process is one of continual improvement. A key FAC-related design change he discussed was the use of T11 tubes in the LP evaporator (Fig 11).

Since 2007, Schroeder said, all N/E HRSGs have been built with T11 tubes in these bundles and the risers are straight-run up to the LP drum. Other design changes include the following:

o Use of diffusers in the LP drum, instead of the cyclone separators typically installed, to decrease
velocities (Fig 12).

o Use of a low-velocity economizer bottom-header design. o Relocation of downcomer orifices to reduce turbulence. o More inspection plugs to allow easer inspection of risers with borescopes.
In addition to the mechanical design aspects of FAC mitigation, Schroeder discussed the role of N/Es cycle chemistry recommendations, which include no oxygen scavengers and elevated pHin line with currently understood FAC mechanisms. The importance of periodic boiler inspections also was mentioned. Other areas Sessions addressed several other FAC-related areas, including discussions around FAC predictive codes of which several were discussed. Key point from this exchange: Predictive codes are only one part of a complete FAC management plan and should not be relied on in isolation; physical plant inspections also are required. The consensus view regarding cycle chemistry of HRSGs is that for systems of all-ferrous construction (that is, no copper-bearing alloys) oxygen scavengers (reducing agents) should not be used. Reason: They increase the area affected by FAC, aswell as the corrosion rate, by increasingthe solubility of the protectivemagnetite layer in the HRSG. The optimal water chemistry for HRSGs can be found in EPRIs guidelines,available on the research organizationswebsite at www.epri.com.Also consult the guidelines offered bythe International Assn for the Properties of Water and Steam (www.iapws.org). The latter is unique inthat it is the only document thatspecifically addresses FAC issues related to two-phase flow. Key points in the guidelines arethe following:

o o o o

Do not use an oxygen scavenger under any circumstances in aplant of all-ferrous construction. Operate with a feedwater pH of9.2 to 9.8, or higher. Maintain feedwater dissolved oxygencontent at less than 10 ppb(but not zero). Depending on plant design, ensure an evaporator pH of 9.2 to 9.8. This may require the use of solid alkali dosing with either tri-sodium phosphate or sodium hydroxide.

Regarding the development of specifications for new projects to design-out FAC riskor in the word of Dooley, design out future failuresconsider the following guidelines:

o Separate HRSG drum and desuperheating systemsthat is, do not allow the LP evaporator tosupply
attemperation water.

o Separate HRSG blowdown systems; do not cascade drains. o Outfit all evaporators with a solid alkali dosing and control system for use with either sodium
hydroxideor tri-sodium phosphate.n Ensure all-ferrous condenser(could be titanium or stainless steel) and HRSG construction.

o Eliminate use of oxygen scavengers and require implementationof a high-pH AVT(O) cooling-towerbased
treatment program. Specify the use of 1.25% (P11) or 2% (P22) chrome materials in the HRSG at locations where there is a high risk of single- and/or two phase FAC.

o Increase the number of sampling locations in accordance with IAPWS guidelines. Include the ability to
sample from all preheater and economizer sections.n

o Ensure that all sampling and analysis systems easily allow use of corrosion-product samplers with
suitable sample flow and that primary coolers are close to the extraction point.

o Finally, you may also consider installing a full-flow condensate polisher capable of ammonia-cycle
operationespecially for seawater-cooled plants.

Experts panel, discussion The day after the formal program concluded, a half-day Experts Panel and Roundtable was convened for follow-on discussion. Seven attendees with expertise in various aspects of FAC opened the forum with assessments of the formal presentations made during the three previous days. There were about 50 participants on the fourth day, attesting to the meetings value and importance. The discussion was robust and continued at a brisk pace until the end of the time allocated. Group consensus was that, although there is an excellent technical understanding of FAC in fossil-fired and combined-cycle plants, there continue to be unusual and unexpected observations in working plants. Additional research is needed to explain these observations and to improve and expand FAC prediction and inspection capabilities. Also, continued transfer of FAC technical knowledge to end users is needed. Important discussion points included the following:

o The best FAC programs are supported by management and clearly define policy, roles, responsibilities,
and resources.

o Communication and clearly defined specifications are critical to success of FAC- resistant designs and to
the inspection of components for FAC damage.

o FAC rates are variable and depend on many factors. A conservative approach must be taken when
considering repair/replacement of damaged components.

o In-kind replacement of damaged components will lead to additional FAC; modified geometries can
increase the damage rate. Use of steel containing 0.1% or more chromium eliminates FAC susceptibility.

o Alternative chemistry control practices should be considered for mitigating two-phase FAC. Approaches
mentioned included use of neutralizing aminespossibly blended with ammonia for pH controland filming amines.

o In units with oxidizing chemistry, closure of deaerator and feedwater heater vents can reduce two-phase
FAC damage. Many plants that can operate with vents closed do not.n Use of commercially available robotics technology appears to offer the greatest possibility for improved inspection of HRSGs.

o Alloy analyzers are less commonly used in fossil plants than they are in nuclear plants. o Iron monitoring, while generally accepted as a means of evaluating FAC control, is subject to several
sampling and analysis concerns. Use of particle monitors to provide an indirect indication of corrosion product transport is now being evaluated in several plants, including some with ACCs.

o End users indicate additional FAC awareness and training is needed in many cases.
End note A disappointing aspect of the conference, in the authors view, was the lack of participation by the chemical supply companies. They provide advice and services to many plants worldwide and often recommend chemical treatment programs out of alignment with current best practices. The meeting offered an excellent opportunity for them to present their alternative viewpoints regarding FAC control so they could be discussed in an open forum to the benefit of all participants. Perhaps more chemical suppliers will participate in the 2013 conference. ccj

[Show picture list]

7F USERS GROUP, HRSG SPOTLIGHT SESSION

Mitigate fatigue cracking in HRSGs

The half-day HRSG Spotlight Session that HRST Inc, Eden Prairie, Minn, has conducted in conjunction with the 7F Users Group meeting for the last several years is designed for plant personnel who want a refresher on heat-recovery steam generators and an update on industry concerns with large triple-pressure units.

Focus of the 2012 workshop was fatigue cracking, with Amy Sieben, PE, presenting on failures in superheater/reheaters and panelized economizers, and Scott Wambeke, PE, addressing drum-nozzle cracking and fatigue in return-bend economizers. Sieben opened the session by saying that fatigue cracking is one of five mechanisms that account for more 90% of all pressure-part failures suffered by HRSGs. The others are flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC), corrosion fatigue, chemical attack/under-deposit corrosion, and dew-point corrosion. Fatigue cracking occurs, she said, when material is repeatedly stressed beyond its yield point. Low-cycle fatigue is the term used to describe fatigue failures that occur in fewer than 1000 cycles. Sieben introduced an important term into the lexicon of many attendees when she stressed the importance of managing the HRSGs fatigue bank account. Fatigue cracking can initiate on the inside or outside surfaces of pressure part s, the boiler designer continued, noting the three components of fatigue: pressure, temperature, and external piping stress.

Superheaters, reheaters
Tube-to-tube temperature differences cause cracking in superheater and reheater panels for two primary reasons:

o Condensate blockage and poor drain design. Inability to remove condensate in timely fashion
during/following a unit purge often is traced to undersize, ganged, or closed drains.

o Water introduced through interstage desuperheaters, which are located between the primary and
secondary superheaters and reheaters. Typical causes include leaking spray-water supply valves, hunting, poor piping arrangements, overspray, and a primary/secondary superheater (or reheater) surface arrangement that is incompatible with a given turbines performance at startup or low load. Note that attemperators sometimes are installed downstream of the final superheater or reheater surface in lieu of, or in conjunction with, an interstage desuperheater. Two concerns shared by owner/operators regarding the use of downstream attemperators: (1) Additional cost and (2) the risk of steam turbine damage in the event of a failure. A couple of slides illustrated for first timers the two basic types of desuperheaters used in HRSGs: (1) Probe style with single- or multi-nozzle axial injection and single- or multi-nozzle radial injection. Reported advantages of the latter are that spray nozzles are not in the steam path and steam/water mixing generally is more efficient than with the probe style attemperator (see article, p 98). Sieben then expanded her coverage of the two bullet points above. She began with a few photos and drawings illustrating how humping of lower headers equipped only with center drains can allow condensate to block tubes at the ends of superheater and reheater panels and cause buckling of those tubes. Having multiple drain locations is one way to solve this problem. Discussion of the dos and donts of drain system design came next. Here are the important take-aways:

o Purge condensate from lower headers before every start. Automatic valves are needed to do this
effectively.

o o o o

Drain condensate as it forms during the gas-turbine purge cycle. Proper sizing of drains is critical. Keep in mind that drains too large or too small can be problematic. Locate blowdown tanks below header drain locations. Avoid combining drains (Fig 1). Be especially careful not to interconnect drains operating at different pressures: The higher pressure drain can block condensate flow from the lower-pressure line.

Sieben next noted that a proper drain must allow for a full range of motion between the penetration seal and the access hole in the HRSG casing. Differential expansion amplifies drain lateral displacement, she said, illustrating the point with Fig 2. Drains that collide with the floor liner or casing often suffer stress-induced cracking (Fig 3). Ineffective draining of cold reheat lines, and occasionally main steam piping, also is conducive to damage. Sieben spoke about water hammer resulting from a slug of condensate being pushed through steam piping during startup. Typically, she said, pipe supports are bent, or thrown out of position; piping may be damaged as well. Tube damage is a possibility, too, if a slug of water reaches the HRSG. Sieben offered a checklist on how to avoid water hammer:

o Drain steam piping before every gas-turbine start. Best practice: Automate valves and install condensate
detection for added protection.

o o o o

Confirm piping slope and the ability of the drain system to clear condensate from the entire line. Prevent the possibility of water accumulation upstream of valvesespecially the steam-turbine bypass. Tightly control bypass/letdown valve attemperation. Check for leaking attemperator spray water.

Before addressing in detail the desuperheater problems identified earlier, Sieben reminded attendees of recent changes to the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code regarding attemperators. First, drain pots downstream of desuperheaters must be able to detect water automatically and to drain it without operator intervention. Second, superheater and reheater drains must be able to detect and drain condensate both under pressure and at atmospheric pressure. Leakage by block and control valves usually can be prevented, Sieben added, sometimes by simply specifying Class V shutoff or better. Confirm leak tightness by finding no drop in steam temperature across the desuperheater. Attemperator hunting, most common at low load, causes chronic cycling with the possibility of fatigue damage in the probe, liner, and/or piping. Hunting increases the likelihood of finding water in the superheater. Attemperator overspray can damage superheaters and reheaters, and, in the case of desuperheaters downstream of those heat-transfer surfaces, may cause catastrophic damage to the steam turbine. Overspray usually is attributed to one or more of the following conditions:

o Poor atomization of spray water because of probe/nozzle damage or partial plugging. o Improper piping designin particular an insufficient straight run of pipe upstream and/or downstream of
the attemperator.

o An arrangement of superheater and/or reheater surface that allows overspray to occur at some
operating points (typically startup or low load) because all the water cannot be evaporated. Sieben spent several minutes explaining the last point by way of diagrams with actual gas and steam temperatures and spray-water flow rates for varying loads both with and without supplementary firing, and for different ratios of superheater and reheater primary and secondary surface. One example presented: A superheater for an F-class HRSG designed with 60% primary surface area and 40% secondary surface area requires no spray water when operating at base load without duct burners in service, but needs 43,000 lb/hr of spray water at min load with supplemental firing. For a superheater having 70% of its surface area in the secondary bundle, 55,000 lb/hr of spray water would be required at min load without duct burners. Correcting for overspray can be extremely challenging and expensive, Sieben continued. Options she offered included these:

o Bypass a portion of the HP saturated steam flowing from the drum to the primary superheater thereby
cooling steam exiting the secondary superheater. Same logic can be applied to the reheat circuit, with some of the cold reheat steam being withdrawn ahead of the heat-transfer surface to cool hot reheat. This option is rarely practical because of the expense involved and because reducing steam flow to superheater/reheater panels can increase metal temperatures above recommended limits.

o If too much surface is installed, remove fins and/or gas baffles, or use tube shields, to reduce heat
transfer.

o Add a final attemperator or an additional interstage desuperheater. o Minimize or eliminate the need for spray water on startup by installing an air attemperation system.

Economizers: panelized, return-bend

In panel-type economizers, Sieben said, water goes up and down in each panel, or harp, making from two to six passes depending on the number of baffles or splitter plates installed in the upper and lower headers (Fig 4). There are from one to three rows of tubes per panel. Return-bend economizers usually have alternating upflow and downflow tubes in the same row (Fig 5). In some cases, water flows up one row, down the nexta serpentine arrangement. High points in return-bend economizers typically cannot be vented, which can be problematic under certain operating conditions. Thermal shock. Sieben said that, depending on panel geometry, a temperature differential between tube rows of from 30 to 100 deg F can cause thermal shock, which contributes to fatigue failure. Such a differential can occur in headered-economizer inlet passes, and in the upper bends of return-bend economizers, at top-off or startup. The boiler engineer explained: During startup, operators expect drum level to swell and the feedwater control valve is closed; no water is flowing through the boiler. During this time, economizer panels soak to temperatures higher than normal.

When HP drum level finally starts to drop, the feedwater control valve opens and cold water shocks the economizer (see article, p 74). Recall that economizer tubes have rigid connections at both ends and high tensile stresses result when panels are shocked. Tube leaks often result at tube-to-header welds. Similar or worse shock can occur when adding water to an economizer during overnight shutdowns. Sieben strongly suggested that operators resist the temptation to do so, even if the water level drops to the bottom of the gauge glass. No heat is being added to the HRSG, she said, so this is not a problem. Sieben then offered the following operational guidelines to minimize the possibility of thermal shock:

o Trickle-feed water through the HP economizer as soon as drum pressure begins to increase. o Assure positive feedwater flow thoughout the startup period. A small startup control valve may help
because the main feedwater control valve installed should not be throttled below its minimum position of 5% to 10% open. A startup valve can be retrofitted in parallel with the main valve to handle low flows.

o Start the main boiler-feed pump when HP drum pressure begins to increase and blow down as needed to
control drum level. Important: Do not stop water flow once started; that would initiate another thermal-shock event. Damage from such events is cumulative.

Buoyancy instability. Sieben moved on to two other fatigue mechanisms: buoyancy instability and steaming economizers. In explaining the first phenomenon, she reminded that warm water is less dense than cold and wants to rise, and that most HRSG economizers have a portion of their tubes that flow down. If the downward velocity is too low, the buoyancy of warm water can cause flow stagnation in down-flow tubes. In extreme cases, flow may actually reverse. Such instability reduces economizer heat transfer, adversely impacting performance. More importantly, tubes experiencing stagnant and reverse flow become hotter than neighboring tubes. The level of stress increases in these tubes, in particular at reduced loads when fluid flow is low. Hundreds of thermal cycles can occur daily, leading to fatigue failures. Buoyancy is a design issue, Sieben continued, that can result in some tubes being from 30 to 60 deg F hotter than adjacent tubesnot a good situation. Damage caused by buoyancy issues sometimes can be mitigated by modifying the flow circuitry of pressure parts. Adding a recirculation circuit to the economizer is another possible solution. Increased fluid velocity can overcome buoyancy instability. Rearranging baffle plates in headers may correct the situation, but this could be costly and require significant outage time. Testing and engineering analysis may indicate certain operating loads where buoyancy issues are especially problematic. Perhaps operation at these loads can be avoided, or at least minimized. Economizers often steam during startup, and when operating at low load without duct burners in service. Steaming can cause vapor lock and flow stagnation. In some cases, the pockets of steam are pushed through a boilers fluid circuitry by water flow when the unit reaches full load. Vents can eliminate steam pockets in panelized economizers, Sieben said, but this would require too many manual vent valves. In return-bend economizers, surging feedwater flow may clear steaming or buoyancy-instability issues. If your economizer is steaming at base load, Sieben told the group, one of these three conditions probably exists:

o Design water-outlet temperature is too close to saturationthat is, the approach is too small. o The economizer bypass is not operating properly or it is under-designed for the service. o Under-performance of upstream (with respect to gas flow) heat-transfer sections.

Return-bend economizers
Regarding return-bend economizers, Wambeke had these comments on thermal shock:

o Ability to withstand thermal shock well. o A few plants have reported tube cracking or flattening of return bends at the top of the bundle. o Maintaining slow flow during startup helps to mitigate vapor locking and reduces the risk of other
problems. Wambeke said buoyancy instability is difficult to correct in this type of economizer. It causes flow stagnation in downflow tubes, which run hotter than upflow tubes. Serpentine return-bend designs are most susceptible to this problem. Steaming in a return bend may create a trapped steam pocket that is very difficult to clear.

ShockMaster economizer
If economizer issues cannot be managed successfully using any of the solutions mentioned above, Wambeke suggested that owner/operators consider replacing their existing economizers with HRSTs ShockMaster. The defining feature of the ShockMaster is that water flow is upward through all tubes. Water collected in the upper header of one panel flows by way of a downcomer to the lower header of the next harp in the series. Sufficient flexibility is designed into the piping system to accommodate panel-to-panel differential growth even during startup thermal shock conditions. With upward flow, Wambeke continued, buoyancy forces are in the same direction as fluid flow, which is conducive to uniform flow through all tubes in a given bundle. Because each panel is single-pass, all tubes at nearly the same temperature there is no possibility of buoyancy instability. To date, HRST has done three conversions and provided ShockMasters for four new units. The new product can be incorporated into any manufacturers HRSG, the boiler designer said.

Steam-drum nozzles
Wambekes presentation on steam-drum nozzle cracking covered much of the same ground as HRSTs Bryan Craig, PE, did at last years HRSG Spotlight Session for 7F users. But given industry concerns with nozzle cracking, this years presentation provided guidance on what to do if damage is identified a nd offered lessons learned from two recent experiences. If cracks are found, Wambeke suggested that the following steps, among others, be taken:

o o o o

Determine the root cause of the cracking. Remove existing defects. Confirm complete removal of defects with an appropriate method of nondestructive examination (NDE). If remaining thickness after excavation is less than that allowed by the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, weld repair is required. Code calculations using actual drum component thickness can quickly determine the need to weld, or not.

o Prepare the entire weld area to bright metal and perform weld prep. o If the original code of construction requires post-weld heat treatment (PWHT), review the National Board
Inspection Code (NBIC) for alternative methods. Wambeke pointed out that for HP drums, the original code of construction likely will require PWHT, which must be done in a band around the drum circumferencetypically impractical. It is better to avoid PWHT, he said, than to perform it incorrectly. Alternative methods involve preheat and have restrictions on weld interpass temperatures. Make sure to have an Authorized Inspector onboard with your repair plan before starting work.

o Complete the repair using the shielded metal-arc welding process and inspect as necessary.
Case history #1. Cracking of a downcomer nozzle was found during a routine inspection and excavation revealed a crack depth of in. A long, expensive repair was anticipated by the owner. However, ASME Code calculations by HRST engineers showed the drum shell, nozzle, and welds slightly larger than the original specifications, and the remaining thickness after excavation was greater than the Code minimum. The repair was delayed so proper planning and budgeting could be done. Case history #2. A substantial number of downcomer cracks was found during a routine inspection, leading inspectors to look at risers; 14 of 16 riser nozzles were affected. Repairs could not be delayed in this case. Wambeke wrapped up his presentation with a list of takeaways from work done thus far on steam-drum nozzle cracking, a common problem in F-class HRSGs. They included the following:

o Driving force is thermal stress caused by startup and shutdown temperature ramps. o Drum nozzle design is important. Example: Full-penetration nozzle welds are better than partialpenetration welds in cycling service.

o Visual inspection is useful, but not sufficient on its own. You can have cracks and not know it. Surface
NDE (dye penetrant, mag particle) is the minimum level of inspection recommended, but volumetric NDE (shear-wave or phased-array ultrasonic testing, radiography) is better still for the additional information it provides.

o Reduce cracking risk by controlling temperature ramp rates, but keep in mind that some details are out
of your control.

o Try to find cracks early in their development, before they propagate deep into the weld or drum shell. o Weld repair, if required, is complex and requires careful planning. o Inspection is vital if your HP drum wall is thicker than 5 in. and the HRSG has experienced more than
800 starts. Have a repair procedure in place.

o Know the design details of drum nozzles. o Consider changing weld details before making repairs; there may be substantial benefits. CCJ