Deposition on Drum Boiler Tube Surfaces

Technical Report
L
I
C
E
N
S
E D
M
A T
E
R
I
A
L
WARNING:
Please read the License Agreement
on the back cover before removing
the Wrapping Material.
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in
accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with
Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of
this publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does
not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the
export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices
embedded in the document prior to publication.

EPRI Project Manager
B. Dooley
EPRI 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
Deposition on Drum Boiler Tube
Surfaces

1008083
Final Report, November 2004



DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
Moscow Power Institute (Technical University)










ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow
Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774, press 2 or internally x5379, (925) 609-9169,
(925) 609-1310 (fax).
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2004 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.



CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Moscow Power Institute (Technical University)
14 Krasnokazarmennaya
Moscow 111250, Russia
Principal Investigators
T. Petrova
O. Povarov
Authors
V. Ananiev
I. Bochkareva
I. Gimadeeva
D. Grigoryan
A. Furunzhieva
V. Kashinsky
V. Makrushin
T. Petrova
N. Pilshchikov
A. Petrov
S. Popov
D. Repin
V. Semenov
V. Shchetintsev
A. Verkhovsky
G. Verkhovsky
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Deposition on Drum Boiler Tube Surfaces, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1008083.

iii
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

Despite the considerable advances that have been made to improve control of fossil plant cycle
chemistry, deposition activitymost notably in boilers and steam turbinesremains an issue of
concern in many fossil units. In response to this problem, EPRI has initiated experimental and
theoretical research activities to understand the science governing deposition in fossil plant
boilers.
Results & Findings
The effect of heat flux on the deposition rate of copper and iron corrosion products onto a carbon
steel boiler tube was studied at three heat fluxes (50, 150, and 300 kW/m
2
) and two chemistries,
all-volatile treatment (AVT) and oxygenated treatment (OT). Increasing heat flux results in an
increased deposition rate onto the surfaces with both AVT and OT. The deposition rate was less
with OT than AVT.
Challenges & Objective(s)
Deposits formed on heat transfer surfaces of boilers are detrimental because they reduce
efficiency and increase heat rate. In boiler waterwall tubing, a building up of waterside solids can
be a prerequisite for a number of underdeposit corrosion boiler tube failure mechanisms. More
extensive solids accumulation can lead to overheating damage and other tube failures. Deposit
removal by chemical cleaning is costly and can negatively impact unit availability. The objective
of this work was to conduct a study in a high pressure, high temperature deposition rig under
realistic boiler operating conditions.
Applications, Values & Use
The results from the overall EPRI study will define those parameters that can influence
deposition in a fossil boiler. As such, they will lead to better control of the corrosion product
inventory throughout a plant. Thus, organizations will ultimately be able to link optimizing the
feedwater and boiler water treatments with boiler deposition.
EPRI Perspective
A substantial portion of the chemistry-related availability losses in fossil plants involves
deposition of solids on boiler surfaces. EPRI cycle chemistry guidelines are effective in
minimizing deposition, but do so indirectly, by controlling the chemistry to reduce impurity
ingress and feedwater corrosion product transport to acceptable levels. Continuing problems with
deposition-related availability losses and associated costs in the fossil industry point to the need
to focus on the science of deposition to establish better criteria and tools for use by plant
operating personnel. This report, together with a review of the Russian and Soviet literature
(EPRI report 1004193) and two other reports on the state-of-knowledge on deposition (1004194
and 1004930) are starting to form the basis of a better understanding of the whole deposition
process. They also will be used to develop a model of boiler deposition, which will include the
key parameters.
Approach
The project team prepared the deposition rig, which closely simulates the conditions in high
pressure boilers. The team then conducted tests up to heat fluxes of 300 kW/m
2
, pressures of
2600 psi (18 MPa), and water temperatures of 660
o
F (350
o
C). They injected various quantities of
iron and copper corrosion product oxides into the test section under two chemistry regimes, AVT
and OT. Finally, they collated the deposition rates as a function of heat flux, concentration of
iron and copper, and chemistry treatment.
Keywords
Deposition
Fossil plant availability
Boiler tube failures
Cycle chemistry
Feedwater corrosion products
EPRI Licensed Material
ABSTRACT
Operational reliability of boiler waterwalls in high heat flux areas is often governed by the
gradual deposition of iron oxide and copper deposits. To reduce the deposition rate it is not only
necessary to control feedwater tube materials corrosion, but also to develop an understanding of
the deposition process.
This study was conducted on a deposition rig, which closely simulates the conditions in a high
pressure drum boiler. Tests were conducted up to heat fluxes of 300kW/m
2
, pressures of 2600
psi (18 MPa) and water temperature of 660
o
F (350
o
C). Varying quantities of iron and copper
oxides were injected into the test section under two chemistry regimes: all-volatile treatment and
oxygenated treatment.


vii
EPRI Licensed Material
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1
2 DESCRIPTION OF TEST RIG AND TEST PROCEDURES ..................................................2-1
2.1 Test Rig...........................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Test Procedures..............................................................................................................2-4
2.3 Monitoring the Thermo-Mechanical and Chemical Parameters During the Tests...........2-5
2.2.1 Monitoring the Thermo-Mechanical Parameters .....................................................2-5
2.2.1 Chemistry Monitoring of Working Fluid....................................................................2-5
2.4 Analysis of the Test Specimens ......................................................................................2-8
3 TEST RESULTS.....................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Effect of Heat Flux on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products With AVT..........3-1
3.2 Effect of Copper Corrosion Products on the Deposition Rate With AVT.........................3-3
3.3 Effect of Heat Flux on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products With OT............3-6
3.4 Effect of Copper Corrosion Products on the Deposition Rate With OT...........................3-8
4 DISCUSSION OF TEST DATA ..............................................................................................4-1
4.1 Effect of Chemistry on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products on Carbon
Steel Surface.........................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Effect of Copper on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products..............................4-1
5 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................5-1
6 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................6-1



ix
EPRI Licensed Material
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Test Rig Diagram......................................................................................................2-2
Figure 2-2 Deaeration Tank Unit................................................................................................2-3
Figure 2-3 Test Section Drawing (a) and Diagram (b) ...............................................................2-4
Figure 2-4 Sampling System Diagram.......................................................................................2-7
Figure 3-1 Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Total) of Iron Corrosion Products With
AVT. Iron was injected as Fe
3
O
4
. ......................................................................................3-3
Figure 3-2 Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Loose) of Iron Corrosion Products With
AVT. Iron was injected as Fe
3
O
4
. ......................................................................................3-3
Figure 3-3 Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Flux of 50 and 300
kW/m
2
With AVT. Iron was Injected as Fe
3
O
4
and Copper as Cu
2
O. .................................3-5
Figure 3-4 Deposits of Corrosion Products With and Without Copper at Heat Flux of 50
and 300 kW/m
2
With AVT...................................................................................................3-5
Figure 3-5 Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Total) of Iron Corrosion Products With OT.
Iron Injected as FeOOH. ....................................................................................................3-7
Figure 3-6 Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Loose) of Iron Corrosion Products With
OT. Iron Injected as FeOOH. ............................................................................................3-8
Figure 3-7 Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Fluxes of 50 and
300 kW/m
2
With OT.........................................................................................................3-10
Figure 3-8 Deposits of Corrosion Products With and Without Copper at Heat Fluxes of
50 and 300 kW/m
2
With OT..............................................................................................3-10
Figure 4-1 Effect of Chemistry on the Deposition Rate (Loose) of Iron Corrosion
Products.............................................................................................................................4-2
Figure 4-2 Effect of Chemistry on the Deposition Rate (Total) of Iron Corrosion Products .......4-2


xi
EPRI Licensed Material
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Sampling Locations and Monitored Parameters........................................................2-6
Table 2-2 Basic Technical Parameters of On-Line Chemistry Analyzers [16, 17] .....................2-6
Table 3-1 Thermal Operational Parameters of Test Rig With AVT Tests ..................................3-1
Table 3-2 Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With AVT (Average
Data), Fe=5-10 ppb. Iron was injected as Fe
3
O
4
. ..............................................................3-2
Table 3-3 Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With AVT (Average
Data), Fe ~ 40 ppb. Iron Was injected as Fe
3
O
4
................................................................3-2
Table 3-4 Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Flux of 50 and 300
kW/m
2
With AVT (Average Data). Iron was injected as Fe
3
O
4
and Copper as Cu
2
O.........3-4
Table 3-5 Amount of Copper Corrosion Products in Total Deposits With AVT..........................3-4
Table 3-6 Thermal Operational Parameters of Test Rig With OT Tests ....................................3-6
Table 3-7 Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With OT (Average
Data), Fe = 5-10 ppb. The iron was injected as FeOOH. ..................................................3-7
Table 3-8 Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With OT (Average
Data), Fe = 40 ppb. Iron Injected as FeOOH. ...................................................................3-7
Table 3-9 Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Fluxes of 50 and 300
kW/m
2
With OT (Average Data). Iron Injected as FeOOH and Copper as CuO................3-9
Table 3-10 Amount of Copper Corrosion Products in Total Deposits With OT..........................3-9
Table 4-1 Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products in the Presence of Copper....................4-3


xiii
EPRI Licensed Material
1
INTRODUCTION
Efficiency and reliability of operation of power generating equipment at power plants in many
respects depend on the purity of the working fluid, i.e. water and steam. That is why the
concentration of impurities in water and steam should be in agreement with the guidelines [1-3].
Deviation from the guidelines such as an excess in concentrations of certain impurities (chloride,
sulfate, iron and copper corrosion products, etc.) could result in an increased rate of corrosion
and deposition in the water-steam cycle of the plant.
Modern power plants use high purity water for boiler makeup, and thus the feedwater contains
corrosion products of the construction materials, namely, iron and copper. Analysis of the
deposits formed on the waterwalls of a drum boiler shows that the predominant portion of
deposits (80-85%) consists of iron corrosion products.
At present there is extensive literature that shows the effect of different factors on the deposition
of iron corrosion products on the drum boiler tubes [4-10]. The basic factors are: heat flux,
concentration of corrosion products, temperature, and surface charge. Since most power plants
with drum boilers use a phosphate treatment with the addition of ammonia into the feedwater
train, the majority of the field data relate to this particular chemistry.
There has been an increasing trend in recent years to use oxygenated treatment (OT) on drum
boilers [11-14]. Data on the effect of OT on deposition of iron corrosion products on boiler tubes
are available only for once-through boilers. This is true for both field and laboratory studies.
Review of the literature makes it almost impossible to estimate the effect of chemistry treatment
and concentration of iron corrosion products in water on the deposition on boiler tubes with
different heat flux. As well as iron corrosion products, the corrosion products of copper-based
alloys (copper and zinc) can also be present in boiler water. The effect of copper on deposition
of iron corrosion products is not known.
Therefore, the overall aims of this current work are:
1. To study the effect of heat flux on the deposition rate of iron corrosion products on the
surface of drum boiler tubes.
2. To study the effect of iron concentration in boiler water on the deposition rate of iron
corrosion products on the surface of drum boiler tubes.
3. To study the effect of water chemistry treatments on the deposition rate of iron corrosion
products on the surface of drum boiler tubes.
4. To study the effect of the presence of copper on the deposition rate of iron corrosion products
on the surface of drum boiler tubes with different chemistry treatments.
1-1
EPRI Licensed Material
2
DESCRIPTION OF TEST RIG AND TEST PROCEDURES
2.1 Test Rig
The test rig shown in Figure 2-1 was used to study the effect of heat flux, water chemistry, and
composition of impurities on the deposition onto tubes. The test rig consists of: the system for
water treatment; the pumps; the heat exchangers to heat the water up to the set temperature; the
test section; the system for addition of chemicals into the test rig cycle; and the sampling system.
All the parts of the test rig, excluding the test section, were manufactured from stainless steel.
The test rig can simulate the processes that take place in the water and steam cycle of fossil
power plants with both drum and once-through boilers. It is designed for operation at pressure
and temperature up to 25 MPa (3600 psi) and 500
o
C (932
o
F), respectively.
The system for water treatment consists of heat exchanger 1 and deaeration tank 2 (see
Figure 2-2), as well as an ion-exchange plant. The steam condensate supplied from the MEI
Power Plant was used as the working fluid.
Steam condenses in the heat exchanger 1 and enters the deaeration tank 2 with a capacity of
about 70 1. The water level in the tank is controlled with the level gauge 3. The tank can serve
as an atmospheric deaerator, if necessary. In this case, the steam supply from the MEI Power
Plant is provided to the bottom section of the tank. The air-steam mixture is discharged into the
atmosphere via vent 6. The system arrangement provides a supply of steam condensate from the
MEI Power Plant to the ion-exchange columns 19 and 20 (Figure 2-1). After the columns the
demineralized water is supplied to the deaeration tank 1. Two groups of ion-exchange columns
are installed: each group consists of two cation exchangers, 19, and one mixed-bed exchanger,
20, located in series. This arrangement provides water with a conductivity less than 0.15 S/cm
and pH of 6.8 7.1.
2-1
EPRI Licensed Material

Description of Test Rig and Test Procedures

Figure 2-1
Test Rig Diagram
1 Deaeration Tank; 2 Deaeration Tank Cooler; 2 Cooler; 2 Sampling Cooler; 3
Drain; 4 Pumps; 5 Receiver; 6 Nitrogen Tank; 7, 7 Throttle Valves; 8 Heat
Exchanger; 9 Heaters; 10 Makeup Water Sampling Point; 11 Dosing Vessels; 12
Metering Pump; 13 Electric Heater of Test Section; 14 Test Section; 15 Flow Meter; 16
Deaeration Tank Outlet Sampling Point; 17 Test Section Inlet Sampling Point; 18 Test
Section Outlet Sampling Point; 19 Cation Exchangers; 20 Mixed Bed Columns
From the bottom section of the deaeration tank water enters the cooler 2, where it is cooled
below 60
o
C (140
o
F), as required for operation of the pumps. The water then enters the positive
displacement pumps, 4, with a stainless steel flowpath. All in all, four pumps with maximum
pressure up to 250 kg/cm
2
each and total flowrate of 400 kg/h (880 lb/h) are installed.
After the pumps, the water enters the receiver 5 designed to control surge pressure in the cycle
due to the operation of the positive displacement pumps. The receiver consists of eleven vessels
with capacity of 0.5 1 each. Each vessel is connected via a valve to a nitrogen tank 6. After the
receiver, water enters the heat exchanger 8 via throttle valves, where it is heated by the water
leaving the test section up to a temperature close to the steam saturation temperature at the set
parameters. Then the water passes through three electric heaters 9 located in series and enters
the test section 14.
The test section (Figure 2-3, a) is a vertical tube of 150 mm (6 in.) in height, with outer and inner
diameters of 11.8 mm (0.5 in.) and 9.8 mm (3.9 in.), respectively. It is manufactured from
carbon steel. The diagram of the test section is shown in Figure 2-3, b. Two Chromel-Alumel
thermocouples 5 and 6 of 0.5 mm in diameter for wall temperature measurement are located at
the bottom and the top of the test section. The lead wires 11 from the transformer 2 are attached
to the test section for generation of heat flux.
2-2
EPRI Licensed Material

Description of Test Rig and Test Procedures

Figure 2-2
Deaeration Tank Unit
1 Heat Exchanger; 2 Deaeration Tank; 3 Level Gauge; 4 Manometer; 5 Cooler;
6 Vent
On leaving the test section, the water enters the heat exchanger 8, where it is cooled and heats the
water entering the test rig. Then the water passes through the coolers 2a and expands.
During the tests, the chemicals are added into the water at the test section inlet. For this purpose,
a special system was manufactured. It consists of a metering pump 12 and vessels 11 filled with
chemicals (iron and brass corrosion products, oxygen, and reducing agent).
One vessel with 5 1 capacity is used for production of a concentrated solution of corrosion
products. This vessel is filled with degreased chips of carbon steel or a brass/carbon steel
mixture. Two other vessels with 10 1 capacity contain diluted solutions of iron and copper
corrosion products; they are connected to the metering pump that injects the solution into the
cycle.
2-3
EPRI Licensed Material

Description of Test Rig and Test Procedures

Figure 2-3
Test Section Drawing (a) and Diagram (b)
1 Test Section; 2 Electrical Transformer; 3, 4 Thermocouples for Water Temperature
Measurement at the Test Section Inlet; 5, 6 Thermocouples for Wall Temperature
Measurement at the Test Section Inlet and Outlet; 7, 8 Thermocouples for Water Temperature
Measurement at the Test Section Outlet; 9 Manometer; 10 Ammeter; 11 Lead Wires
2.2 Test Procedures
All the tests on the effect of heat flux and concentration of iron and copper corrosion products on
the deposition rate onto the tube surface were performed at a pressure of 18 MPa (2600 psi) and
water temperature in the test section of about 350
o
C (660
o
F); the linear water velocity inside the
specimen was about 0.3 m/s (1 ft/s).
The tests were performed as follows. Water was pumped from the tank via the receiver and the
heaters, where it was heated to 350
o
C, to the test section inlet. Then the water returned to the
tank or was discharged.
During the tests with elevated levels of iron and copper corrosion products, the corrosion product
solution was added to the cycle at the inlet of the test section.
During the tests with oxygenated treatment, the oxygen level was controlled by the water
bubbling rate in the deaeration tank. During the tests with reducing treatment, the reducing agent
was added to the water where the solutions containing iron (or iron plus copper) corrosion
products were prepared. These were then injected into the water before the test section.
2-4
EPRI Licensed Material

Description of Test Rig and Test Procedures
The tests were performed at three different values of heat flux: 50, 150, and 300 kW/m
2
. During
each test, the heat flux at the test section was kept constant. The duration of most of the tests
was around 120 hours.
2.3 Monitoring the Thermo-Mechanical and Chemical Parameters During
the Tests
2.2.1 Monitoring the Thermo-Mechanical Parameters
The following basic thermo-mechanical parameters were monitored during the test rig operation:
pressure, temperature, and water flowrate through the test section. Pressure is measured with
four manometers installed on the pressure side of the pumps, at the inlet of the heaters, and at the
inlet/outlet of the test section (Figure 2-1). The accuracy of pressure measurement is 0.1 MPa
(14 psi). Water temperature was measured at the inlet-outlet of the test section, and at the outlet
of the cooler and throttle valves. Also the measurement of wall temperature along the height of
the test section was performed. Measurement of water and wall temperature was performed with
thermocouples: two thermocouples (3 and 4) were installed at the water inlet to the test section;
two thermocouples (7 and 8) were installed at the water outlet from the test section, and two
thermocouples (5 and 6) were welded to the outer wall of the test section. All the thermocouples
were calibrated originally. Temperature was monitored with a digital ammeter connected to the
thermocouples via a multi-channel switch. The accuracy of temperature measurement was 0.8
o
C.
Water flowrate through the test section was monitored with an electromagnetic flowmeter (the
accuracy grade is 0.3) [15].
Heat flux is one of the basic parameters measured during the tests. It was mentioned above that
for generation of heat flux, the lead wires 11 from the transformer 2 were attached to the test
section. For heat flux determination, current and voltage were measured. Current was measured
with the ammeter (accuracy grade of 0.2), and voltage with the voltmeter (accuracy grade of
0.01).
Heat flux is calculated from the following equation:
q = U
.
I/S
in
Equation 1-1
where: q is the heat flux through the test section, W/m
2
; U is the voltage at the test section, V; I is
the electric current, A; and S
in
is the area of internal surface of the test section, m
2
.
2.2.1 Chemistry Monitoring of Working Fluid
During the tests, the purity of the working fluid around the cycle was monitored in the following
locations: deaeration tank outlet 1, test section inlet 17, test section outlet 18, and makeup water
10 (Figure 2-1).
2-5
EPRI Licensed Material

Description of Test Rig and Test Procedures
The sampling locations and monitored parameters are listed in Table 2-1.
Conductivity, pH, and dissolved oxygen concentration were measured with Martek Mark XVIII
on-line chemistry analyzers. Sodium concentration was determined with an Orion 11811 EL on-
line sodium analyzer [16, 17]. The basic technical parameters of these analyzers are given in
Table 2-2.
Table 2-1
Sampling Locations and Monitored Parameters
Sampling Location Monitored Parameters Monitoring Interval
Specific conductivity Continuous
Makeup water
pH Continuous
Specific and cation conductivity Continuous
H Continuous
Dissolved Oxygen Continuous
Deaeration tank outlet
Sodium Continuous
Dissolved Oxygen Continuous
pH Continuous
Redox potential (ORP) Continuous
Iron Grab (once per hour)
Test section inlet
Copper Grab (once per hour)
Redox potential (ORP) Continuous
Iron Grab (once per hour) Test section outlet
Copper Grab (once per hour)

Table 2-2
Basic Technical Parameters of On-Line Chemistry Analyzers [16, 17]
Parameter Instrument Measurement range Accuracy
Conductivity Martek Mark XVIII
0-2 S/m
0-20 S/m
0.05S /
0.05S /
Dissolved oxygen Martek Mark XVIII
0-20 ppb
0-200 ppb
1.0% fsd at temperature of calibration
Martek Mark XVIII 2-12 0.05
Sodium Orion 11811 EL 0.01-1000 ppb 2.5% or 0.01 ppb
2-6
EPRI Licensed Material

Description of Test Rig and Test Procedures
In addition to these instruments, the Mark-301T on-line oxygen analyzer was used for the
determination of oxygen concentration at low water flowrate [18]. Comparison of measurement
of the oxygen concentration over the range 200-400 ppb with two on-line instruments Martek
Mark XVIII and Mark-301T showed that the difference in the readings did not exceed 3-5% of
the measured value.
Redox potential (ORP) was measured by the MARK-901 pH-millivoltmeter [19]. Platinum is
used as the measuring electrode. It was treated and calibrated according to special procedures
[20]. The same instrument has been used for measurement of pH at the test section inlet. This is
because the Martek Mark XVIII pH-meter needs at least 2.7 1/h of sample flowrate for stable
operation, and the pH-millivoltmeter could work at significantly lower flowrates. The difference
in the readings of these two instruments over the pH range of 7.0-9.5 and at the flowrates typical
for the Mark XVIII pH-meter did not exceed 0.05 pH units.
Concentrations of iron and copper were determined with AAS-3 spectrophotometer with
accuracy of 2 ppb.
The system for recording and processing of the signals coming from the on-line analyzers is
shown in Figure 2-4.

Figure 2-4
Sampling System Diagram
2-7
EPRI Licensed Material

Description of Test Rig and Test Procedures
2.4 Analysis of the Test Specimens
After each test the specimen was removed and dried in a desiccator. Then it was cut along the
length and surface analysis was performed for total and loose deposits. The analysis was
performed by the weighing. Prior to the analysis for deposits, the specimen was weighed, after
that any loose deposits were removed with a brush, and finally the specimen was weighed once
again. The difference in specimen weight before and after this treatment gave the weight of the
loose deposits.
After removal of the loose deposits the specimen was washed in Trilon B solution (concentration
of 15 g/l) and dried. Then the specimen was weighed and the difference in the specimen weight
before removing the loose deposits and after the treatment with Trilon B gives the weight of total
deposits. The weighing was performed with an Adventurer electronic balance (accuracy of
0.0001 g) [21].
For the determination of the composition of iron and copper corrosion products in water at the
test section inlet, the water passes through an ultrafilter with porosity of 0.45 nm, and the
accumulated matter is monitored with an X-ray diffractometer.

2-8
EPRI Licensed Material
3
TEST RESULTS
3.1 Effect of Heat Flux on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products
With AVT
As previously mentioned, all the tests on the deposition rate of iron corrosion products were
performed at a pressure 18 MPa (2600 psi) and water temperature about 350
o
C (660
o
F). The
basic thermal operational parameters of the test rig for each run are given in Table 3-1.
Condensate is supplied from the MEI Power Plant, which uses AVT chemistry for feedwater and
phosphate chemistry in the boiler water. The purity of the water that entered the test rig was the
following: pH ~ 9.2; specific conductivity (SC) 3.7-6.1 S/cm; cation conductivity (CC) 0.20-
0.42 S/cm; Na 2.1-6.3 ppb; DO 10-20 ppb.
It should be noted in Tables 3-2 and 3-3, that the ORP is slightly positive indicating that the
chemistry is AVT(O) as expected because no reducing agent was added to the water in the test
loop.
Table 3-1
Thermal Operational Parameters of Test Rig With AVT Tests
Run No. q, kW/m
2
G, l/h V, m
2
/s t
1
wall
,
o
t
2
wall
,
o
t
in
water
,
o
t
out
water
,
o

1 54.6 73 0.279 - 335.9 326.4 329.1
2 150.4 59 0.217 349.4 354.2 324.3 328.0
3 * 291.5 61 0.225 352.7 355.1 319.4 328.7
4 48.1 69 0.254 327.0 331.5 327.9 328.7
5 48.5 64 0.236 340.2 - 324.7 328.2
6 159.9 73 0.269 332.0 333.6 323.3 328.2
7 50.2 74 0.273 329.2 335.6 325.2 328.8
7 ** 296.9 73 0.269 349.7 351.8 315.3 328.5
8 149.5 75 0.276 322.4 340.2 314.5 328.8
9 **

302.6 74 0.273 350.7 353.7 308.7 328.5
10 51.1 72 0.265 334.0 336.1 325.7 328.7
23 50.3 72 0.265 329.2 332.3 325.1 328.0
24 300.0 82 0.303 347.8 350.7 314.2 326.4
25 50.8 80 0.295 326.4 333.7 324.4 327.5
26 ** 298.2 76 0.280 339.8 349.9 318.1 329.3
27 294.5 74 0.273 340.1 349.2 316.8 327.5
28 298.5 76 0.280 338.6 348.9 315.8 327.0
Notes: * indicates depressurization of specimen; ** rupture of specimen wall.
3-1
EPRI Licensed Material

Test Results
Table 3-2
Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With AVT (Average Data), Fe=5-
10 ppb. Iron was injected as Fe
3
O
4
.
Water Purity at the Test Section Inlet
Deposition
Rate
10
-2
mg/(cm
2
h) Run
No.
Time
h
q
kW/m
2

DO,
ppb

sc
S/cm
cc
S/cm


Na
ppb
Fe
ppb
ORP
mV
Fe at
the
Outlet
ppb
Loose Total
1 121 54.6 <10 9.2 5.70 0.82 5.1 10.5 65 6.0 0.71 0.9
5 121 48.5 <10 8.9 5.70 0.38 0.9 6.8 72 3.9 0.23 0.41
7 123 50.2 <10 9.1 6.00 0.20 0.7 7.8 60 5.1 0.49 0.59
2 120 150.4 <10 9.4 5.60 0.41 1.2 8.5 85 4.5 0.54 0.73
6 121 159.6 <10 9.1 5.90 0.31 0.5 9.0 70 2.5 1.06 1.50
27 76 294.5 <10 9.3 5.60 0.32 3.5 7.6 80 <2.0 2.21 2.82
3
*
77 291.5 <10 9.2 6.30 0.39 1.5 9.8 75 - 3.89 5.37
7** 28 296.9 <10 9.1 5.80 0.30 1.41 5.7 80 - 0.67 1.07
Notes: * depressurization of specimen and disruption of operating conditions after 72 hours of operation; **
rupture of specimen wall after 28 hours of operation
Table 3-3
Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With AVT (Average Data), Fe ~
40 ppb. Iron Was injected as Fe
3
O
4
.
Water purity at the test section inlet Deposition Rate
10
-2
mg/(cm
2
h)
Run
No.
Time
h
q
kW/m
2

DO
ppb

sc
S/cm
cc
S/cm

Na
ppb
Fe
ppb
ORP
mV
Fe at
the
Outlet,
ppb Loose Total
4 125 48.1 <10 9.3 5.20 0.40 2.1 46.3 76 37.1 1.13 1.45
8 121 149.5 <10 9.1 6.10 0.20 2.4 41..6 80 28.6 1.80 2.20
28 77 298.5 <10 9.1 5.90 0.34 4.2 38.2 65 13.6 3.66 4.30
9* 18 302.6 <10 9.0 5.40 0.40 3.9 39.8 80 - 1.15 2.78
Note: * rupture of specimen wall after 18 hours of operation.
The test data (Tables 3-2 and 3-3, and Figures 3-1 and 3-2) indicate that an increase in heat flux
results in an increase of the total amount of deposits: for example, at an iron concentration in
water at the test section inlet of 5-10 ppb and a heat flux of ~50 kW/m
2
the deposition rate was
about 0.5
.
10
-2
mg/cm
2
.h), while at a heat flux of ~300 kW/m
2
the rate was 2.8
.
10
-2
mg/(cm
2.
h).
An increase in the concentration of iron corrosion products in the water at the test section inlet
also resulted in an increase in the amount of deposits on the specimen surface at all the studied
values of heat flux (Table 3-3 and Figure 3-1). Similar dependencies were produced for the
loose deposits: the deposition rate increased with heat flux for both levels of iron corrosion
products in water (Figure 3-2).
3-2
EPRI Licensed Material

Test Results
3.2 Effect of Copper Corrosion Products on the Deposition Rate With AVT
Study of the effect of copper on the deposition rate of iron corrosion products was one of the
tasks of the current work. This study was performed at two values of heat flux: 50 and 300
kW/m
2
. During these tests, in addition to iron corrosion products, copper corrosion products
were injected into the test section inlet at concentrations between 8.8-15.3 ppb. In this series of
tests the iron was injected as Fe
3
O
4
and the copper as Cu
2
O. Test results (Table 3-4 and Figure 3-
3) indicate that in this case the deposition rate also increased with heat flux. The presence of
copper corrosion products in water increased the total amount of deposits as compared to the test
case without copper corrosion products (Figure 3-4). The percentage of deposits of copper
corrosion products found in the total deposit is given in Table 3-5.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Heat flux, kW/m
2
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

m
g
/
(
c
m
2
*
h
)
*
1
0
-
2
Fe = 5-10 ppb
Fe = 40 ppb

Figure 3-1
Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Total) of Iron Corrosion Products With AVT. Iron was
injected as Fe
3
O
4
.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Heat flux, kW/m
2
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

m
g
/
(
c
m
2
*
h
)
*
1
0
-
2
Fe = 5-10 ppb
Fe = 40 ppb

Figure 3-2
Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Loose) of Iron Corrosion Products With AVT. Iron was
injected as Fe
3
O
4
.
3-3
EPRI Licensed Material

Test Results
These data indicate that the copper percentage in the total deposits is almost independent of iron
concentration in water, but does depend on heat flux. For example, an increase in heat flux from
50 to 300 kW/m
2
increased the copper percentage from 8.2 to 50%.
Table 3-4
Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Flux of 50 and 300 kW/m
2
With
AVT (Average Data). Iron was injected as Fe
3
O
4
and Copper as Cu
2
O.
Water purity at the test section inlet
Deposition
Rate
10
-2

mg/(cm
2
h)
Run
No.
Time
h
q
kW/m
2

DO
ppb

Sc
S/cm
Cc
S/cm
Nap
pb
Fe
ppb
Cu
ppb
ORP
mV
Fe at
the
Outlet
ppb
Cu at
the
Outlet
ppb
Loose Total
23 120 50.3 <10 9.0 3.70 0.39 5.9 5.7 8.8 65 <2.0 8.1 0.58 0.85
24 78 300.0 <10 9.1 6.00 0.38 6.3 6.8 14.2 85 <2.0 5.5 2.03 3.20
25 120 50.8 <10 9.1 4.40 0.42 4.6 42.1 15.3 70 30.1 13.2 1.05 1.50
26* 8 298.2 <10 9.3 5.10 0.37 3.9 36.9 9.6 80 11.9 - -
Note: * rupture of specimen wall after 18 hours of operation.
Table 3-5
Amount of Copper Corrosion Products in Total Deposits With AVT
q, kW/m
2

Deposition Rate
10
-2
mg/(cm
2
h)
Deposition Rate of
Copper Corrosion
Products,
10
-2
mg/(cm
2
h)
Percentage of Copper
Corrosion Products in
Total Deposits, %
Notes
50.3 0.85 0.07 8.2 C
Fe
=5-10 ppb
C
Cu
=8.8 ppb
50.8 1.50 0.15 10.0 C
Fe
=42.1ppb
C
Cu
=15.3 ppb
300.0 3.20 1.6 50.0 C
Fe
=5-10 ppb
C
Cu
=14.2 ppb

3-4
EPRI Licensed Material

Test Results
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Heat flux, kW/m
2
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

m
g
/
(
c
m
2
*
h
)
*
1
0
-
2
50 300
1 2 3 4 5 6
Fe = 5-10 ppb, Cu = 8.8 ppb: 1 loose deposits, 2 total deposits
Fe = 40 ppb, Cu = 15.3 ppb: 3 loose deposits, 4 total deposits
Fe = 5-10 ppb, Cu = 14.2 ppb: 5 loose deposits, 6 total deposits

Figure 3-3
Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Flux of 50 and 300 kW/m
2
With
AVT. Iron was Injected as Fe
3
O
4
and Copper as Cu
2
O.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Heat flux, kW/m
2
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

m
g
/
(
c
m
2
*
h
)
*
1
0
-
2
1 1 2 3 4 2 3 4
50 300
loose deposits, Fe = 5-10 ppb: 1 without Cu, 2 with Cu;
total deposits, Fe = 5-10 ppb: 3 without Cu, 4 with Cu

Figure 3-4
Deposits of Corrosion Products With and Without Copper at Heat Flux of 50 and 300 kW/m
2

With AVT
3-5
EPRI Licensed Material

Test Results
3.3 Effect of Heat Flux on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products
With OT
For the tests with OT, the MEI Power Plant steam condensate was treated with the test rig ion-
exchange plant. The required oxygen concentration and pH value were controlled by the ratio of
the water flow entering the pumps from the ion exchangers and from the deaeration tank. As
with AVT, the tests were performed at heat fluxes of 50, 150, and 300 kW/m
2
and two
concentrations of iron corrosion products at the test section inlet. In this series of tests the iron
was injected as FeOOH. The basic thermal operational parameters during these tests are given in
Table 3-6, and the results are provided in Tables 3-7 and 3-8, and Figures 3-5 and 3-6.
It should be noted that the ORP is oxidizing in Tables 3-7 and 3-8 as a result of the high oxygen
levels.
Table 3-6
Thermal Operational Parameters of Test Rig With OT Tests
Run No. q, kW/m
2
G, l/h V, m
2
/s t
1
wall
,
o
t
2
wall
,
o
t
in
water
,
o
t
out
water
,
o

11 151.8 70 0.258 333.6 346.5 322.4 327.9
12 303.5 80 0.295 339.5 349.8 318.4 327.8
13 310.4 63 0.232 349.5 353.4 314.1 326.8
14 303.4 61 0.225 346.0 349.0 316.4 327.6
15 148.8 62 0.228 333.1 345.9 324.1 328.5
16

*

151.2 74 0.273 339.6 350.2 324.2 328.7
17 49.6 72 0.265 326.4 329.3 329.0 331.7
18 50.0 71 0.261 328.3 332.0 327.4 329.6
19 49.3 70 0.258 326.5 332.7 326.9 328.9
20 50.0 70 0.258 326.5 327.1 324.1 327.7
21 300.0 66 0.242 333.2 350.0 316.9 326.6
22 275.7 69 0.254 338.7 348.2 315.9 326.4
29 156.0 71 0.261 337.8 349.2 323.9 328.1
Note: * water purity varied
3-6
EPRI Licensed Material

Test Results
Table 3-7
Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With OT (Average Data), Fe = 5-
10 ppb. The iron was injected as FeOOH.
Water purity at the test section inlet Deposition Rate,
10
-2
mg/(cm
2
h)
Run
No.
Time
h
q
kW/m
2

DO
ppb
sc
S/cm
cc
S/cm


Na
ppb
Fe
ppb
ORP
mV
Fe at the
Outlet,
ppb
Loose Total
17 118 49.6 312 8.3 2.40 0.50 2.8 5.6 275 4.5 0.22 0.37
11 121 151.8 232 8.2 2.40 0.40 2.9 9.5 230 6.0 0.51 0.73
15 121 148.8 287 7.8 2.50 0.20 3.3 10.0 260 8.5 0.25 0.41
12 90 303.5 352 8.1 2.60 - 1.2 8.0 280 <2 1.50 2.00
13 98 310.4 349 8.3 3.5 0.50 1.4 6.8 280 <2 1.15 1.67

Table 3-8
Deposits of Iron Corrosion Products at Different Heat Flux With OT (Average Data), Fe = 40
ppb. Iron Injected as FeOOH.
Water purity at the test section inlet Deposition Rate,
10
-2
mg/(cm
2
h)
Run
No.
Time
h
q, kW/m
2

DO
ppb
sc
S/cm
cc
S/cm


Na
ppb
Fe
ppb
ORP,
mV
Fe at
the
Outlet,
ppb
Loose Total
18 120 50.0 289 8.1 2.1 0.40 2.5 38.8 225 37.0 0.28 0.45
29 118 156.0 286 8.2 6.50 0.41 2.5 39.0 240 33.0 0.50 1.10
14 78 303.4 284 7.9 2.5 0.20 3.3 45.5 230 28.5 1.80 2.40
16* 115 151.2 264 7.7 7.6 0.20 92.6 52.0 240 42.0 1.80 2.00
Note: * water purity varied.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Heat flux, kW/m
2
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

m
g
/
(
c
m
2
*
h
)
*
1
0
-
2
Fe = 5-10 ppb
Fe = 40 ppb
Fe = 40 ppb (poor water purity)

Figure 3-5
Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Total) of Iron Corrosion Products With OT. Iron Injected
as FeOOH.
3-7
EPRI Licensed Material

Test Results
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Heat flux, kW/m
2
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

m
g
/
(
c
m
2
*
h
)
*
1
0
-
2
Fe = 5-10 ppb
Fe = 40 ppb
Fe = 40 ppb (poor water purity)

Figure 3-6
Effect of Heat Flux on Deposition (Loose) of Iron Corrosion Products With OT. Iron
Injected as FeOOH.
The data presented in Tables 3-7 and 3-8 and shown in Figure 3-5 and 3-6 indicate that the
deposition rate of total and loose deposits on specimen surfaces increased with an increase in
heat flux from 50 to 300 kW/m
2
. Increasing concentrations of iron corrosion products also
resulted in an increase of deposition rate at constant heat flux value. The pattern of this
dependence with heat flux was almost the same for both ~ 10 ppb and ~ 40 ppb of iron corrosion
products.
3.4 Effect of Copper Corrosion Products on the Deposition Rate With OT
This study was performed at two values of heat flux: 50 and 300 kW/m
2
. As with AVT, copper
corrosion products were injected into the water. But here the copper was injected as CuO. With
the simultaneous presence of iron and copper corrosion products in the water, the total amount of
deposits on the specimen surface increased with heat flux and concentration of iron corrosion
products (Tables 3-9 and 3-10, Figures 3-7 and 3-8).
These data indicate that the percentage of copper in the deposits is almost independent of heat
flux, but does depend on iron concentration in water at the test section inlet. For example, at iron
concentration in water of ~ 40 ppb it was several times higher than at 5-10 ppb.
3-8
EPRI Licensed Material

Test Results
Table 3-9
Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Fluxes of 50 and 300 kW/m
2
With
OT (Average Data). Iron Injected as FeOOH and Copper as CuO.
Water Purity at the Test Section Inlet Deposition Rate
10
-2
mg/(cm
2
h)
Run
No.
Time
h
q
kW/m
2

DO,
ppb
sc,
/cm
cc,
S/cm
Na,
ppb
Fe,
ppb
Cu,
ppb
ORP,
mV
Fe at
the
Outlet
ppb
Cu at
the
Outlet
ppb
Loose Total
19 49.3 296 8.1 1.50 0.20 2.0 36.6 16.4 220 34.8 16.0 0.25 0.49
20 50.0 316 8.4 2.50 0.20 4.5 9.0 16.1 245 7.8 15.0 0.13 0.33
21 300.0 272 7.9 2.40 0.31 6.8 7.9 12.0 235 <2 11.0 0.71 2.02
22 275.7 261 8.0 2.60 0.45 4.0 40.2 8.4 270 20.2 6.0 1.06 2.70

Table 3-10
Amount of Copper Corrosion Products in Total Deposits With OT
q, kW/m
2
Deposition Rate,
10
-2
mg/(cm
2
h)
Deposition Rate of Copper
Corrosion Products,
10
-2
mg/(cm
2
h)
Percentage of Copper
Corrosion Products in
Total Deposits, %
Notes
50.0 0.33 0.014 4.2 C
Fe
=5-10 ppb
C
Cu
=16.1 ppb
49.3 0.49 0.054 11.0 C
Fe
=36.6 ppb
C
Cu
=16.4 ppb
300.0 2.02 0.036 1.8 C
Fe
=5-10 ppb
C
Cu
=12 ppb
275.7 2.70 0.390 14.4 C
Fe
=40.2 ppb
C
Cu
=8.4 ppb

3-9
EPRI Licensed Material

Test Results
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Heat flux, kW/m
2
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

m
g
/
(
c
m
2
*
h
)
*
1
0
-
2
1
5
2 3 4
6 7 8
50 300
Fe = 5-10 ppb, Cu = 16 ppb: 1 loose deposits, 2 total deposits
Fe = 40 ppb, Cu = 16 ppb: 3 loose deposits, 4 total deposits
Fe = 5-10 ppb, Cu = 12 ppb: 5 loose deposits, 6 total deposits
Fe = 40 ppb, Cu = 8.4 ppb: 7 loose deposits, 8 total deposits

Figure 3-7
Deposits of Iron and Copper Corrosion Products at Heat Fluxes of 50 and 300 kW/m
2

With OT
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Heat flux, kW/m
2
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

m
g
/
(
c
m
2
*
h
)
*
1
0
-
2
1 1 2 3 4 2 3 4
50 300
loose deposits, Fe = 5-10 ppb: 1 without Cu, 2 with Cu;
total deposits, Fe = 5-10 ppb: 3 without Cu, 4 with Cu

Figure 3-8
Deposits of Corrosion Products With and Without Copper at Heat Fluxes of 50 and 300
kW/m
2
With OT

3-10
EPRI Licensed Material
4
DISCUSSION OF TEST DATA
4.1 Effect of Chemistry on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products
on Carbon Steel Surface
The tests performed show that deposition rate of iron corrosion products on carbon steel surface
under conditions similar to those on drum boiler waterwalls depends on the type of chemistry.
Under AVT the amount of iron corrosion deposits was much higher than with OT (Figures 4-1
and 4-2). The chemistry effect is more pronounced at the elevated iron levels.
From previous test and field data it is known that the deposition rate onto heat transfer surfaces
depends upon the form of the iron corrosion products [22, 23]. Under AVT, iron corrosion
products are predominantly magnetite (Fe
3
O
4
) with traces of lepidocrocite (FeOOH); but with
OT the bulk of the corrosion products are in the form of lepidocrocite, with minor amounts as
magnetite.
Clearly these different forms of iron corrosion products in the water at the test section inlet
significantly influence the deposition processes and the resulting deposition rates. Phase analysis
of iron oxide by X-ray diffraction on the carbon steel surface showed the following. Independent
of heat flux with AVT, the loose (outer) layer consisted of (96.0-98.2)%Fe
3
O
4
and an
unidentified phase. The inner layer also mainly consisted of 94.4% Fe
3
O
4
; -Fe was also
detected in this layer together with an unidentified phase. With OT, the loose (outer) layer
consisted of (84.2-91.0)% Fe
2
O
3
; Fe
3
O
4
and -Fe were also detected, but it was not possible to
determine the ratio. The inner layer was composed of Fe
2
O
3
and -Fe.
4.2 Effect of Copper on the Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products
With the presence of copper corrosion products, the deposition rate onto the specimen surface
increased with both AVT and OT. Comparison of the data on the amount of the deposits of iron
corrosion products with and without the presence copper corrosion products in the water shows
that at a heat flux of 50 kW/m
2
the copper corrosion products have almost no effect on the
deposition rate of iron corrosion products (Table 4-1). But with both AVT and OT at a heat flux
of ~300 kW/m
2
, the deposition rate of iron corrosion products with copper present is different:
with AVT it decreases and with OT it increases, especially at the elevated iron levels.
It should be noted that the deposition rate of copper corrosion products increased with heat flux
with both AVT and OT (Tables 3-5 and 3-9.). But with OT the copper deposition rate was lower
than that with AVT; heat flux, iron and copper concentrations being the same.
4-1
EPRI Licensed Material

Discussion of Test Data
50
300
5-10
40
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

m
g
/
(
c
m
2
*
h
)
*
1
0
-
2
H
eat flux, kW
/m
2
F
e
,

p
p
b
AVT
OT
OT
AVT

Figure 4-1
Effect of Chemistry on the Deposition Rate (Loose) of Iron Corrosion Products
50
300
5-10
40 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

m
g
/
(
c
m
2
*
h
)
*
1
0
-
2
H
eat flux, kW
/m
2
F
e
,

p
p
b
AVT
OT
OT
AVT

Figure 4-2
Effect of Chemistry on the Deposition Rate (Total) of Iron Corrosion Products
4-2
EPRI Licensed Material

Discussion of Test Data
Table 4-1
Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion Products in the Presence of Copper
Deposition Rate of Iron Corrosion
Products
mg/(cm
2
h)
q, W/m
2
Chemistry Concentration of
Iron in Water, ppb
Concentration of
Copper in Water
ppb
Without Cu With Cu
50.3 AVT 5-10 8.8 0.50 0.78
50.0 AVT ~40 15.3 1.40 1.35
300.0 AVT 5-10 14.2 2.70 1.60
50.0 OT 5-10 16.1 0.35 0.29
50.0 OT ~40 16.4 0.45 0.44
300.0 OT 5-10 12.0 1.80 1.98
275 OT 40 8.4 1.60 2.30
Again the basic reason for these different deposition rates is due to the different forms of copper
corrosion products with these two chemistries. Study of the composition of the corrosion
products in the water at the test section inlet showed that with AVT the copper was
predominantly as Cu
2
O with a small amount of non-identified spinel-type substance, but with OT
the copper was mainly as CuO It is now known that the solubility of Cu
2
O is similar to that of
CuO at boiler operating temperatures [24]. It is interesting that with AVT the percentage of
copper in the total deposit drastically increases with heat flux.

4-3
EPRI Licensed Material
5
CONCLUSIONS
1. The effect of heat flux on the deposition rate onto a carbon steel tube surface was studied at
three heat flux values (50, 150, and 300 kW.m
2
) and two chemistries (AVT and OT).
2. Increasing heat flux resulted in increased deposition rates on the carbon steel surface with
both AVT and OT chemistries.
3. The deposition rate with OT was less than that with AVT.
4. The presence of copper corrosion products had very little effect on the deposition rate of iron
corrosion products.

5-1
EPRI Licensed Material
6
REFERENCES
1. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: All Volatile Treatment. 1004187, EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA, 2002.
2. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Oxygenated Treatment. 1004925, EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA, 2004.
3. Guidelines for Operation of Power Plants and Electric Networks. ORGRES/Energoservice,
Moscow, Russia, 1996.
4. Yu. V. Zenkevich and V.E. Sekrertar, Formation of Iron Oxide Deposits in Supercritical
Steam Generator Tubes, Teploenergetika, No. 11, pp. 66-69 (1976).
5. V.P. Glebov, P.A. Antikain, V.M. Zusman, A.P. Mamet, E.P. Kurilenko, and V.A. Taratuta,
Kinetics of Formation of Inner Iron Oxide Deposits in Boiler Tubes Located in High
Thermal Stress Zones, Elektricheskie Stantsii. No. 8, pp. 19-23 (1975).
6. N.A. Mankina and B.L. Koktov, On the Mechanism of Iron Oxide Scaling,
Teploenergetika. No. 9, pp. 15-17 (1973).
7. M.I. Reznikov, V.L. Menshikova, I.F. Kobyako, V.P. Brusakov, N.N. Devianin, and V.L.
Balakin, Effect of Inner Iron Oxide Deposits on Temperature Condition of Operation of
Radiant Tubes of Supercritical Steam Generator, Teploenergetika. No. 11, pp. 51-55
(1975).
8. L.I. Belyakov, L. Yu. Krasyakova, and A.F. Belokonova, Magnetite Deposits in Waterwalls
of TGMP-114 Boiler and Experience of their Removal, Teploenergetika. No. 2, pp. 49-53
(1974).
9. G.M. Kaluzhskaya, R.A. Meyer, and M.A. Gotovsky, Thermal Resistance of Inner Tube
Deposits with Boiling,Teploenergetika. No. 7, pp. 55-58 (1984).
10. N.A. Mankina, Scaling in Steam Boilers with Multiple Circulation, Teploenergetika. No.
12, pp. 45-51 (1964).
11. F. McCarthy, J.E. Bane and G. OConnor, Oxygenated Treatment in a 300 MW Drum Type
Boiler, PowerPlant Chemistry. Vol. 1, No. 6, pp. 17-21 (1999).
12. D. Addison, K. Hopkins, and B. White, Oxygenated Treatment at Huntly Power Station
Unit 2: Preliminary Results from Steady State and 2-Shifting Operation, PowerPlant
Chemistry. Vol. 4, No. 8, pp. 449-457 (2002).
13. D. McInnes, J. Cabrera, and D. Ryan, Tarong Energys Experience with Unit Cycle Copper
Transport and Deposition, PowerPlant Chemistry. Vol. 3, No. 11, pp. 651-655 (2001).
14. I. Dedekind, D. Aspden, K.J. Galt, and D. Dalgetty, Oxygenated Feedwater Treatment at the
Worlds Largest Fossil Power Plant Beward of Pitfalls, PowerPlant Chemistry. Vol. 3,
No. 11, pp. 651-655 (2001).
6-1
EPRI Licensed Material

References
15. RM-5 Electromagnetic Counter/Flowmeter. Operational Manual. TBN Energoservice,
Moscow, Russia, 2001.
16. Mark XVIII Ultrapure Water Quality Monitoring System Operation Manual. Martek
Instruments Inc., Raleigh, NC, 1993.
17. Low Level Sodium Monitor. Model 1811 EL. Instruction Manual. Orion Research, Boston,
MA, 1993.
18. MARK-301T Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer. Operation Manual. NPP Vzor, Nizhny
Novgorod, Russia, 1999.
19. MARK-901 pH-Millivoltmeter. Operation Manual. NPP Vzor, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia,
2002.
20. T.I. Petrova et al, Measurement of Oxidation Potential of Aqueous Solutions, Trudy MEI.
Vol. 238, pp. 26-32 (1975).
21. Adventurer Analytical Balance. Operation Manual. Ohaus Corp., Pine Brook, NJ, 2002.
22. I.I. Chudnovskaya, The Structure and Phase Composition of Inner Deposits in Lower
Radiant Section Tubes, Teploenergetika. No. 11, pp. 68-70 (1979).
23. G.V. Vasilenko, Regularities of Deposition of Iron Compounds in Supercritical Steam
Generators with Different Water Chemistries, Teploenergetika. No. 3, pp. 43-47 (1978).
24. Behaviour of Aqueous Electrolytes in Steam Cycles: The final report on the solubility and
volatility of Copper (I) and Copper (II) oxides. EPRI. Palo Alto, CA. 1011075. September
2004.

6-2

EPRI 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
2004 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.
EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America
Program: 1008083
Boiler and Turbine Steam and Cycle Chemistry
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.
About EPRI
EPRI creates science and technology solutions for
the global energy and energy services industry.
U.S. electric utilities established the Electric Power
Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research
consortium for the benefit of utility members, their
customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI,
the company provides a wide range of innovative
products and services to more than 1000 energy-
related organizations in 40 countries. EPRIs
multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers
draws on a worldwide network of technical and
business expertise to help solve todays toughest
energy and environmental problems.
EPRI. Electrify the World
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.