EPRI Guide Lines FAC

Guidelines for Controlling Flow-Accelerated
Corrosion in Fossil and Combined Cycle Plants
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
N
SED
WARNING:
supersedes the export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed
material notices embedded in the document prior to publication.
A L
LICE
Please read the License Agreement

on the back cover before removing
R I
M AT E the Wrapping Material.

Technical Report
Guidelines for Controlling Flow-
Accelerated Corrosion in Fossil and
Combined Cycle Plants
1008082
Final Report, March 2005
EPRI Project Manager

R. B. Dooley
Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
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
EPRI
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. TOGETHERSHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY is a service mark of
the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2005 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
EPRI
3412 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Authors
R. B. Dooley
R. Tilley
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Guidelines for Controlling Flow-Accelerated Corrosion in Fossil and Combined Cycle Plants,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1008082.
iii
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
Feedwater system piping and tubing failures due to flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) have
occurred in conventional fossil plants and economizer/evaporator tubing in Heat Recovery Steam
Generators (HRSGs) over at least the last 20 years. Worker fatalities have refocused attention on
controlling damage due to FAC. These guidelines, which describe the tasks and approaches
required for an effective FAC control program in fossil and combined cycle plants, present a
strategy for inspection- and cycle chemistry-based activities.
Results & Findings

These guidelines integrate information on FAC in fossil and HRSG plants into a comprehensive
approach. They describe the organization and activities necessary to implement a successful
FAC program. The FAC mechanisms for single-and two-phase flow are described in detail.
Cycle chemistry can be optimized to minimize single-phase FAC in conventional fossil plants,
and both single-phase and two-phase FAC in HRSG plants. The guidelines describe the
management-supported FAC program necessary to manage FAC and link it with an FAC
Benchmarking process.
Challenges & Objectives

The mechanism of FAC is well understood; and the majority of FAC susceptible components
and systems, especially those operating in single-phase water, can avoid FAC damage through
operation with appropriate cycle chemistry conditions. A subset of susceptible components will
require periodic inspection and possible replacement, however. The objective of this study was
to consolidate existing information into a comprehensive approach to assist operators in
controlling FAC.
Applications, Values & Use

FAC occurs in about 60% of conventional fossil plants and is the second most important HRSG
tube failure mechanism in combined cycle plants. The implementation of the inspection- and
cycle chemistry-based approaches will be a cost effective method of increasing personnel safety
and plant availability.
EPRI Perspective
FAC damage can be controlled to avoid severe failures by careful implementation of the
activities in the road maps presented in these guidelines. Activities related to cycle chemistry can
significantly reduce susceptibility to future FAC damage while inspection-based activities can
address damage that has already occurred. It is essential that organizations implement a formal
program to control FAC in fossil and HRSG plants and that the EPRI Benchmarking process be
used to assess improvements and implementation of FAC activities.
v
Approach
Since the publication of the initial FAC guideline (EPRI Report TR-108859), EPRI has
conducted FAC workshops and been involved in many FAC incidents with many organizations
around the world. The EPRI team used this large database to assemble case studies to cover as
many fossil and HRSG FAC locations as possible. The team next developed mechanistic
understandings of FAC phenomena and used this knowledge to optimize the cycle chemistry and
inspection approaches described in these guidelines. Finally, the team developed road maps that
describe the tasks and approaches required for an effective FAC control program in both fossil
and HRSG plants.
Keywords
Flow-accelerated Corrosion
Feedwater Piping
Heat Recovery Steam Generators
Cycle Chemistry
vi
EPRI Licensed Material
ABSTRACT
This guideline is the first revision of the document developed in 1997 for conventional fossil
plants. It now provides the overall methodologies to control flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) in
fossil plants as well as in combined cycle/HRSG plants. For both, an integrated two-pronged
road map approach, involving the inspection based and cycle chemistry based activities, has been
developed. A detailed description of the mechanism of single- and two-phase FAC is included,
as well as numerous examples of FAC in both types of plant.
vii
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION TO FAC AND THE FAC GUIDELINES......................................................1-7

1.1 History of FAC Occurrences...........................................................................................1-7
1.2 Background of Developed EPRI Technology for FAC Control .......................................1-7
1.3 Mechanism of FAC in Fossil Plants................................................................................1-7
1.4 Corporate FAC Program Overview ................................................................................1-7
1.5 How Good is My FAC Program? ....................................................................................1-7
1.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................1-7
1.7 References .....................................................................................................................1-7
2 FAC MECHANISM AND EXAMPLES IN CONVENTIONAL AND COMBINED CYCLE

PLANTS.....................................................................................................................................2-7
2.1 Mechanisms of FAC .......................................................................................................2-7
2.1.1 Introduction to Single- and Two-Phase Flow and FAC...........................................2-7
2.1.2 Feedwater Chemistry for Fossil and HRSG Plants Controls the Oxide on the
Material Surface ...............................................................................................................2-7
2.1.3 Factors Affecting the Growth of Magnetite with AVT(R) which are the Basis
for FAC .............................................................................................................................2-7
2.1.4 Factors Affecting the Growth of Ferric Oxide Hydrate (FeOOH) with AVT(O)
and OT..............................................................................................................................2-7
2.1.5 Importance of Feedwater Metallurgy for FAC in Fossil Plants ...............................2-7
2.1.6 FAC Influencing Factors .........................................................................................2-7
2.1.7 Two-phase FAC......................................................................................................2-7
2.2 FAC Examples, Morphology and Locations in Conventional Fossil Plants ....................2-7
2.2.1 Single-phase FAC in Conventional Fossil Plants ...................................................2-7
2.2.2 Two-phase FAC in Conventional Plants.................................................................2-7
Deaerators ...................................................................................................................2-7
Low Pressure Heater Shells ........................................................................................2-7
Drain Lines...................................................................................................................2-7
ix
2.2.3 FAC in Conventional Fossil Plants with Mixed-Metallurgy Feedwater

Systems (Heater Tubing Contains Copper Alloys) ...........................................................2-7
2.2.4 Other Locations for FAC in Fossil Plants................................................................2-7
2.2.5 Summary for FAC in Conventional Fossil Plants....................................................2-7
2.3 FAC Examples, Morphology and Locations in Combined Cycle/HRSGs.......................2-7
2.3.1 FAC in HRSG Tubing .............................................................................................2-7
2.3.2 FAC in LP Drums....................................................................................................2-7
2.3.3 Summary for FAC in HRSG Plants.........................................................................2-7
2.4 References .....................................................................................................................2-7
2.4.1 Referenced in Text .................................................................................................2-7
2.4.2 Bibliography on FAC in HRSGs..............................................................................2-7
2.4.3 Bibliography on FAC...............................................................................................2-7
3 OVERVIEW OF FAC PROGRAM FOR FOSSIL AND COMBINED CYCLE/HRSG

PLANTS.....................................................................................................................................3-7
3.1 Approach for Conventional Fossil Plants .......................................................................3-7
Step 1 - Develop Corporate Program and Philosophy (Section 1.4) ................................3-7
Step 2 - Develop Comprehensive FAC Program..............................................................3-7
Step 3 - Review Design, Materials and FAC Experience (Section 4) ...............................3-7
Step 4 - Review Cycle Chemistry Experience and Results ..............................................3-7
Step 5 - Identify Susceptible Systems and Lines (Section 4) ...........................................3-7
Step 6 - Perform Initial FAC Analysis (CHECUP/CHECWORKS).............................3-7
Step 7 - Perform Initial NDE Inspections ..........................................................................3-7
Step 8 - Material Sampling/Removal ................................................................................3-7
Step 9 - Perform Necessary Repairs/Replacements ........................................................3-7
Step 10 - Subsequent Inspections and Analysis ..............................................................3-7
Step 11 - Optimize Feedwater Chemistry.........................................................................3-7
Step 12 - Safe Unit Operation ..........................................................................................3-7
Step 13 - Longterm Options and Continual Check ...........................................................3-7
3.2 Approach for Combined Cycle/HRSG Plants .................................................................3-7
Step 1 - Specify and Design HRSGs to Avoid FAC..........................................................3-7
Step 2 - Monitoring During Commissioning ......................................................................3-7
Step 3 - Develop Corporate Program and Philosophy .....................................................3-7
Step 4 - NDE Inspections .................................................................................................3-7
Step 5 - Materials Sampling .............................................................................................3-7
x
Step 6 - Repair and Replacement ....................................................................................3-7

Step 7 - Subsequent Inspections......................................................................................3-7
Step 8 - Monitoring Iron Levels around the HRSG Cycle .................................................3-7
Steps 9 and 11 - Addressing FAC in the Feedwater by Monitoring and Adjusting
the Feedwater Chemistry .................................................................................................3-7
Steps 10 and 11 - Addressing FAC in the Evaporator Circuits by Monitoring and
Adjusting the Evaporator Treatment.................................................................................3-7
Step 12 - Continued Operation.........................................................................................3-7
3.3 References .....................................................................................................................3-7
4 IMPLEMENTING THE FAC ROAD MAP ...............................................................................4-7

4.1 Information Gathering.....................................................................................................4-7
4.1.1 Plant Design and Materials.....................................................................................4-7
4.1.2 Operating Experience............................................................................................4-7
4.2 Identify and Prioritize Susceptible Systems and Lines...................................................4-7
4.2.1 Exclusion of Systems From Evaluation ..................................................................4-7
4.2.2 Prioritize Units and Systems For Evaluation ..........................................................4-7
4.2.2.1 Conventional Fossil Units ................................................................................4-7
4.2.2.2 HRSG Units ....................................................................................................4-7
4.3 Initiation of Action Paths.................................................................................................4-7
4.4 Documentation ...............................................................................................................4-7
5 INSPECTION-BASED ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................5-7

5.1 Performing FAC Analysis ...............................................................................................5-7
5.2 Selecting and Scheduling Components For Inspection..................................................5-7
5.2.1 Sample Selection....................................................................................................5-7
5.2.2 Expanded Sample Inspection.................................................................................5-7
5.2.3 Inspection Locations for Lines with Uncertain Operating Conditions .....................5-7
5.2.4 Inspection Locations for Lines that Cannot be Analyzed Using The Selected
Predictive Methodology ....................................................................................................5-7
5.3 CHECUP Summary ....................................................................................................5-7
5.4 Perform NDE Inspections...............................................................................................5-7
5.4.1 Inspection Techniques............................................................................................5-7
5.4.2 Ultrasonic Testing Inspections................................................................................5-7
5.4.2.1 Grid Coverage ................................................................................................5-7
5.4.2.2 Grid Size .........................................................................................................5-7
xi
5.4.3 Through-Insulation Inspections ..............................................................................5-7

5.4.4 Measuring Trace Alloy Content ..............................................................................5-7
5.5 Evaluating Inspection Data.............................................................................................5-7
5.5.1 Evaluation Process.................................................................................................5-7
5.5.2 Data Reduction.......................................................................................................5-7
5.5.3 Determining Initial Thickness and Measured Wear ................................................5-7
Band Method...........................................................................................................5-7
Area Method............................................................................................................5-7
Moving Blanket Method...........................................................................................5-7
Point-to-Point Method .............................................................................................5-7
5.6 Identifying and Confirming the Cause of Damage..........................................................5-7
5.7 Evaluating Worn Components........................................................................................5-7
5.7.1 Acceptable Wall Thickness.....................................................................................5-7
5.7.2 Maximum Wear Rate...............................................................................................5-7
5.7.3 Remaining Service Life............................................................................................5-7
5.8 Outage Documentation ..................................................................................................5-7
5.9 Perform Necessary Repairs and Replacements ............................................................5-7
5.9.1 Repairing and Replacing Components...................................................................5-7
5.9.2 Use of FAC Resistant Materials ..............................................................................5-7
5.9.3 System Design Changes ........................................................................................5-7
5.10 References ...................................................................................................................5-7
6 OPTIMIZE FEEDWATER CHEMISTRY IN CONVENTIONAL FOSSIL AND HRSG

PLANTS.....................................................................................................................................6-7
6.1 Optimization of All-Ferrous Feedwater Chemistry in Conventional and HRSG
Units ......................................................................................................................................6-7
Step 1 - Review Normal or Current Feedwater Treatment ...............................................6-7
Step 2 - Monitoring Baseline on Current Feedwater Treatment .......................................6-7
Step 3 - Evaluate Reducing Agent Requirements ............................................................6-7
Step 4 - Monitoring with New Feedwater Treatment ........................................................6-7
Steps 5 and 6 - Consider Converting to OT .....................................................................6-7
Step 7 - Continue to Optimize the Feedwater Treatment .................................................6-7
Step 8 - Operation and Continuing Monitoring .................................................................6-7
6.2 Optimization of Feedwater Treatment for Conventional Fossil Plants with Mixed-
Metallurgy Systems ...............................................................................................................6-7
Step 1 - Review of Water Chemistry, Operation, and Experience....................................6-7
xii
Step 2 - Baseline Monitoring ............................................................................................6-7

Step 3 - Water Chemistry Optimization ............................................................................6-7
Step 4 - Design and Material Changes.............................................................................6-7
Step 5 - Operation ............................................................................................................6-7
Step 6 - Monitoring to Compare with Baseline Data.........................................................6-7
Step 7 - Normal Operation and Monitoring.......................................................................6-7
Step 8 - Continual Check of Chemistry ............................................................................6-7
Step 9 - Longterm Plans...................................................................................................6-7
6.3 References .....................................................................................................................6-7
7 PERFORM LONGTERM MONITORING AND INSPECTIONS ..............................................7-7

7.1 Follow-On Inspections....................................................................................................7-7
7.2 Longterm Monitoring ......................................................................................................7-7
7.3 Outage Documentation ..................................................................................................7-7
A BENCHMARKING AN ORGANIZATIONS FAC PROGRAM IN CONVENTIONAL

FOSSIL PLANTS...................................................................................................................... A-7
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... A-7
Assessing the FAC Organization of a Utility......................................................................... A-7
A. Corporate Mandate for the Organizations FAC Program .......................................... A-7
B. Prediction and Inspection of Feedwater Systems in Fossil Plants ............................. A-7
C. Cycle Chemistry Control of All-ferrous Feedwater Systems ...................................... A-7
D. Indicator of Corrosion/FAC in All-ferrous Units (plant or system) .............................. A-7
E. Indicator of Corrosion/FAC in Mixed-metallurgy Units (plant or system).................... A-7
F. Indicator of Two-phase FAC in the LP Heater Shells (plant or system) (see
Section 2.2.2) .................................................................................................................. A-7
G. Indicator of FAC in the Heater Drain Lines (single- and two-phase FAC (plant
or system) (see Section 2.2.2)......................................................................................... A-7
Assessment of an Organizations FAC Program.................................................................. A-7
Rating Systems as a Function of Feedwater Metallurgy ...................................................... A-7
Rating System for an Organization with both All-ferrous and Mixed-Metallurgy
Feedwater Systems......................................................................................................... A-7
Rating System for an Organization with only All-ferrous Feedwater Systems................. A-7
Rating System for an Organization with only Mixed-Metallurgy Feedwater Systems...... A-7
xiii
B BENCHMARKING AN ORGANIZATIONS HEAT RECOVERY STEAM

GENERATOR DEPENDABILITY PROGRAM ......................................................................... B-7
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... B-7
Assessment of an Organizations HRSG Dependability....................................................... B-7
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Schematic of Typical FAC Locations in an HRSG....................................................1-7

Figure 2-1 Schematic of Magnetite Growth and Morphology under Reducing AVT
Conditions ..........................................................................................................................2-7
(8)
Figure 2-2 Corrosion Product Release from Carbon Steel as a Function of pH ......................2-7
Figure 2-3 Solubility of Magnetite as a Function of Temperature at Various Ammonia
(9)
Concentrations. ................................................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-4 Change in Oxidizing-Reducing Potential (ORP) and Feedwater Iron Levels
(Fe) at the Economizer Inlet when Hydrazine (N2H4) was Gradually Reduced on a
600 MW Fossil Drum Unit with an All-Ferrous Feedwater System ....................................2-7
Figure 2-5 Carbon Steel Material in Reducing Feedwater at a Location with Severe FAC.
Note very thin Fe3O4 on surface. ........................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-6 Free Corrosion Potential for Carbon Steel as a Function of Oxygen and
(10)
Temperature ...................................................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-7 Schematic of Oxide Growth and Morphology with AVT(O) and OT..........................2-7
Figure 2-8 Solubility of Ferric Hydrate-Oxides at 0.5 ppm NH4OH (Data extracted from
Reference 11) Compared with Fe3O4 Solubility (extracted from Figure 2-3) ......................2-7
Figure 2-9 Metallographic Cross-Section through an Economizer Inlet-Header Tube After
Operating under an Oxidizing Feedwater Condition for One Year. The protective
oxide formed on the surface should be compared to that under a reducing condition
which resulted in FAC (Figure 2-5). ...................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-10 Mechanism of the FAC in Flowing AVT(R). Note: Cs is the concentration of
iron at the oxide/solution interface (oxide solubility) and C is the bulk iron
concentration......................................................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-11 FAC on an HP Feedwater Heater Tube Sheet. All HP and LP heater tubing
in this unit was stainless steel. The feedwater was AVT(R)...............................................2-7
Figure 2-12 FAC Failure and Damage on an Economizer Inlet Header Tube. All HP and
LP heater tubing in this unit was stainless steel. The feedwater was AVT(R). ..................2-7
Figure 2-13 Typical Surface Appearance of FAC. The feedwater water flow was from top
to bottom. ...........................................................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-14 Typical Scalloped Appearance of Single-phase FAC as Viewed with a
Scanning Electron Microscope...........................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-15 Typical Example of Tiger-Striping Appearance of Two-phase FAC .....................2-7
Figure 2-16 Severe Two-phase FAC in a Deaerator Located at a Fluid Entry Position.............2-7
Figure 2-17 Severe Two-phase FAC in a Deaerator Located at a Fluid Entry Position:
Note that the Two-phase Damage has been Weld Overlayed Previously .........................2-7
xv
Figure 2-18 Good Example of Diverse Areas of Two-phase FAC (Black) in an Area
which is Generally Protected (Red) Because of the Maintenance of Single-phase
Flow....................................................................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-19 Internal and External Views of Two-phase FAC on the Shell of a LP Heater.
Note the Typical Wavy Pattern of the Two-phase FAC on the ID. .....................................2-7
Figure 2-20 Metallographic Cross-section through the LP Heater Shell Shown in Figure
2-19. The FAC rate increases towards the right side of the figure. ....................................2-7
Figure 2-21 Further Metallographic Information of Figure 2-20 Showing the Demarcation
Between Areas that Have Not Suffered FAC (to the left) and Those Where Severe
FAC Has Occurred (towards the right). In the former areas there is a protective
oxide (magnetite) and deposition (lower left). In the latter (lower right) there is no
protective oxide and the FAC has preferentially attacked the pearlite (dark regions)
of the carbon steel..............................................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-22 Two-phase FAC (Black/Shiny) Occurring on the Shell Side of the Lowest LP
Heater Shell on a Unit on OT. The red areas are protected by FeOOH in the single-
phase areas. ......................................................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-23 Same LP Heater Shell as Shown in Figure 2-22. This one shows the
location of the cascading drain from the next highest LP heater (second vertical
pipe from the right). Note that the impingement plate is protected (red), indicating
that the impinging fluid at this stage is single-phase. .........................................................2-7
Figure 2-24 NDE Survey of the Two-phase FAC Damage on the LP Heater Shell Shown
in Figures 2-22 and 2-23 ....................................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-25 Illustrating the Catastrophic Nature of FAC Failures in Drain Lines .......................2-7
Figure 2-26 Example of FAC Damage in a LP Drain Line into the Turbine Exhaust Prior
to the Condenser................................................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-27 FAC Damage on Exhaust Hood at Condenser Neck. Note serious previous
damage has been repaired by attaching plates...............................................................2-7
Figure 2-28 FAC Damage to Turbine Diffuser and Exhaust Ducting at LP Turbine
Exhaust of a 450MW Unit with a Drum Boiler. Note the Wavy Appearance Typical
of Two-phase FAC. ............................................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-29 Typical Location of FAC in a LP Evaporator of a Triple-pressure HRSG. The
FAC usually occurs in association with the dogleg or pant leg as the tubing enters
the header. .........................................................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-30 FAC Failure in a LP Evaporator Tube Just Prior to the Header..............................2-7
Figure 2-31 Example of FAC in Vertical LP Evaporator Tubing. a) shows single-phase
FAC, b) shows two-phase FAC, and c) and d) show the lack of any protective
magnetite on the tube surface. The Arows in d) Point to the Preferential FAC Attack
of the Pearlite Colonies in the Carbon Steel ......................................................................2-7
Figure 2-32 Example of FAC in Horizontal LP Evaporator Tube. a) shows region of
single-phase FAC at tight 180 bend where flow is from left to right, b) and e) show
typical formations of box-like and blistered magnetite, and c) shows the lack of
protective magnetite in the severe FAC areas. ..................................................................2-7
Figure 2-33 Visual and Metallographic Characteristics of Two-phase FAC. Note Wavy
Appearance which is Typical in Tubes Damaged by Two-phase FAC...............................2-7
Figure 2-34 Example of FAC on the LP Drum Internals ............................................................2-7
xvi
Figure 2-35 Example of FAC on a Natural Circulation HRSG Drum Separating Device ...........2-7
Figure 3-1 Road Map of Activities for Controlling FAC in Fossil Plants .....................................3-7
Figure 3-2 Road Map of Activities for Controlling FAC in Combined Cycle/HRSG Plants.........3-7
Figure 3-3 Measured Iron Profiles around an HRSG when Operating With and Without a
Reducing Agent (Hydrazine). .............................................................................................3-7
Figure 5-1 Sample Input Screen for CHECUP FAC Analysis .................................................5-7
Figure 5-2 Sample Output Report from CHECUP FAC Analysis ............................................5-7
Figure 5-3 Grid Layout for an Elbow ..........................................................................................5-7
Figure 5-4 Radiographic Technique for FAC .............................................................................5-7
Figure 5-5 Comparison of PEC and UT Results for FAC Damage to Piping .............................5-7
Figure 5-6 Recommended Inspection Coverage in Circumferential Direction for a
Feedwater Heater Shell .....................................................................................................5-7
Figure 5-7 Comparison of PEC and UT (pulse echo) Results for a Feedwater Heater
Shell Left Section ............................................................................................................5-7
Figure 5-8 Example of Band Method .........................................................................................5-7
Figure 5-9 Example of Area Method ..........................................................................................5-7
Figure 5-10 Example of Moving Blanket Method .......................................................................5-7
Figure 5-11 Predicted Thickness Profile ....................................................................................5-7
Figure 5-12 Potential for Error When Using Average Wear Rate Based on Inspection
Data....................................................................................................................................5-7
Figure 5-13 Potential Error Of Using Wear Rate Based On Inspection Data From Two
Inspections .........................................................................................................................5-7
Figure 6-1 Road Map for Optimizing Feedwater Treatment for All-Ferrous Feedwater
Systems. ............................................................................................................................6-7
Figure 6-2 Road Map for Optimizing Feedwater Treatment for Mixed Metal Systems
(Cu/Fe) to Minimize Feedwater Corrosion Products (Fe and Cu), and FAC of the
Carbon Steel Components .................................................................................................6-7
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Significant FAC Failures in Nuclear Power Plants Since 1989 ..................................1-7
Table 1-2 Survey Results of FAC Incidents in Fossil Plants in 2003 (2000 and 1997). *
+
Indicates single-phase FAC. Indicates that two-phase FAC predominates. ....................1-7
(4)
Table 1-3 Serious FAC Failures in Fossil Plants from 1982 ....................................................1-7
Table 1-4 HRSG Tube Failure Mechanisms (Compiled from surveys at 2001/2003
International Conferences).................................................................................................1-7
Table 2-1 Factors Influencing FAC in Fossil and HRSG Plants.................................................2-7
Table 2-2 Comparison of Normal Feedwater Cycle Chemistry Limits for AVT and OT as
a Function of Feedwater Metallurgy ...................................................................................2-7
Table 2-3 Published Geometric Enhancement Factor Values for Piping Components with
Single-phase Flow as Used in Various FAC Models..........................................................2-7
Table 5-1 Maximum Grid Sizes for Standard Pipe Sizes (1 inch = 2.54 cm) .............................5-7
Table 5-2 Performance of Common FAC-Resistant Alloys........................................................5-7
Table B-1 Supplementary Information for Factor C ................................................................. B-7
xix
1
INTRODUCTION TO FAC AND THE FAC GUIDELINES
Flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) causes wall thinning (metal loss) of carbon steel piping,
tubing and vessels exposed to flowing water (single-phase) or wet steam (two-phase). If
undetected, the degraded component can suddenly rupture, releasing high temperature steam and
water into neighboring plant areas. The escaping fluids can injure plant workers, sometimes
severely, and damage nearby equipment. Over the years, FAC has caused hundreds of piping
and equipment failures in all types of fossil, industrial steam, and nuclear power plants, and tube
failures in Heat Recovery Steam Generators, HRSGs. Prior to the mid-1980s often the cause of
the failure was not known by the plant owner, or if known, was not reported. Additionally, the
power industry did not fully understand the conditions under which FAC occurred, where plants
should look to find it, or how to best control it when it was found.
This changed in 1986. On December 9 of that year, an elbow in the condensate system ruptured
at the Surry Nuclear Power Station. The failure caused four fatalities and tens of millions of
dollars in repair costs and lost revenue. FAC was found to be the cause of the failure. Because of
the deaths involved and the high degree of regulation applied to the nuclear power plants, a
comprehensive overall approach was needed. An intensive international cooperative effort was
initiated to understand the parameters which affect FAC. The strategy was that understanding
FAC would allow the development of technology to help plants find damage before failure
occurs, and the measures to control it. The major parties in this cooperation were EPRI,
Electricit de France, and Kraftwerk Union, now a part of Siemens.
Around the late 1980s, FAC also started to be positively identified in the feedwater systems of
conventional fossil plants, and inspection programs were initiated. This took on fresh emphasis
following the fatal burst at the Pleasant Prairie Plant in 1995.
More recently gas-fired combined cycle/HRSG plants became the new generating source of
choice. HRSGs are now operating in a multitude of formats: vertical and horizontal gas paths,
vertical and horizontal tubing, single-, double-, and triple-pressure recirculating (drum) systems,
and mixed drum and once-through systems. FAC quickly became the number one HRSG tube
failure (HTF) problem with most of the failures and damage being concentrated in the low
pressure evaporator circuits irrespective of the HRSG format. The LP circuits most often operate
at a pressure of around 6070 psi (0.40.5 MPa). FAC has also been observed on the LP drum
internal structures such as separators.
This introductory section briefly provides the history of FAC in both nuclear and fossil plants
and in HRSGs, the background information on the CHEC series of computer codes developed
to address FAC, and the background on the importance of cycle chemistry in fossil plant and
HRSG FAC.
1-1
Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines
1.1 History of FAC Occurrences
The technology and information developed since the Surry and Pleasant Prairie failures have
greatly reduced the incidence of FAC failures. Nevertheless, instances of severe thinning, leaks,
and ruptures are still occurring on a frequent basis. Some of the most significant examples of
recent failures in nuclear plants are summarized in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1
Significant FAC Failures in Nuclear Power Plants Since 1989
Plant Date Location
S. M. de Garona (Spain) December 1989 Feedwater
Loviisa Unit 1 (Finland) May 1990 Feedwater

Millstone Unit 3 December 1990 Heater drain
Millstone Unit 2 November 1991 Reheater drain
Almaraz Unit 1 (Spain) December 1991 Extraction steam

Loviisa Unit 2 (Finland) February 1993 Feedwater
Sequoyah Unit 2 March 1993 Extraction steam
Fort Calhoun April 1997 Extraction steam
Mihama Unit 3 August 2004 Feedwater
Failures in fossil and industrial steam plants have not historically been as well documented,
because the plants are not as tightly regulated and because FAC has not been properly identified.
However, as a result of the fatalities at the Pleasant Prairie fossil plant in 1995 the topic now has
a higher priority.
Surveys conducted in 2003, 2000 and 1997 provide an indication of the important areas where
FAC has been identified in fossil plants (Table 1-2). It can be seen that about 60% of fossil
organizations experience FAC; this recognition has increased from about 40% in 1997. The table
also indicates that heater drain lines remain the most predominant area. It is also important to
note that both single-phase and two-phase FAC is occurring.
Table 1-3 provides a summary of recent (from 1982) serious fossil plant failures, resulting in
bursts, extensive plant damage, or fatalities, known to be caused by FAC.
1-2
Table 1-2
Survey Results of FAC Incidents in Fossil Plants in 2003 (2000 and 1997). * Indicates
single-phase FAC. + Indicates that two-phase FAC predominates.
60% of Utilities Report FAC (60%, 40%)
Locations of FAC
Economizer Inlet Tubing* 25% (22%)
Heater Drain Lines*+ 52% (32%, 10%)
Piping Around BFP* 25% (16%)
Tubesheet/Tubes in HP Heaters* 11% (12%)
Piping to Economizer Inlet Header* 35% (11%)
Deaerator Shell+ 14% (11%)
Shell Side of LP Heaters+ 7%
Table 1-3
Serious FAC Failures in Fossil Plants from 1982(4)
Plant Location Temp. Feedwater pH Oxygen Feedwater

Treatment Heaters
A Elbow 360 F NH3/N2H4/ low All-

downstream 182 C Carbo- < 1 ppb Stainless
of BF hydrazide
booster
pump
B Elbow near NH3/N2H4 8.80 - low All-

EI at RT plug 9.20 < 1 ppb Stainless
C Downstream 456 F NH3/N2H4 8.75 very low All-

of boiler stop 236 C < 1 ppb Stainless
valve near EI
D-M EI tubes Final Feed NH3/N2H4 9.00 - very low All-

Water 9.40 < 1 ppb Stainless
1-3
Table 1-3 indicates that there are a number of very important and significant features which are
common to these FAC incidents in conventional fossil plants:
the feedwater failures all occurred in the high pressure portions of the system up to and
including the economizer inlet header tubes. This means that the temperature range up to
280-300C in fossil plants is susceptible to failure. This range is usually considered above
the temperature at which maximum FAC occurs in laboratory experiments and at which
maximum magnetite solubility occurs.
each system (A-M) had stainless steel low and high pressure feedwater heaters.
the feedwater in each case was treated with both ammonia and a reducing agent (hydrazine or
alternative) which means the feedwater was operating under very reducing conditions (below
-300mV redox or ORP potential).
the feedwater oxygen levels were very low (< 1 ppb).
the heater drains (Table 1-2) are susceptible areas in plants with both all-ferrous and mixed
feedwater metallurgies.
The importance of the cycle chemistry will be discussed further in later Sections. The
information within Tables 1-2 and 1-3 is used later in the road map in Section 3 to provide initial
priorities for inspection.
FAC is now recognized as the second most important HRSG Tube Failure (HTF) in HRSGs as
indicated in Table 1-4. It has generally been located in the LP evaporator circuits (Figure 1-1),
but isolated incidents have occurred in LP and HP economizer or preheater tubing and in the
riser/feeder systems. FAC occurs in HRSGs under both single-phase (water) and two-phase
(water and steam) flow conditions; it is important to recognize the features of both as different
solutions apply.
Table 1-4
HRSG Tube Failure Mechanisms (Compiled from surveys at 2001/2003 International
Conferences)
Thermal Fatigue 1
FAC 2
Corrosion Fatigue 3
Under-deposit Corrosion 4
Hydrogen Damage
Acid Phosphate Corrosion
Caustic Gouging
Pitting 5
1-4
Figure 1-1
Schematic of Typical FAC Locations in an HRSG
The feedwater systems of modern multi-pressure HRSGs are much simpler than in conventional
fossil plants and generally contain no feedwater heaters. This is a major difference from
conventional fossil plants in that failure from FAC in the feedwater piping is extremely rare in an
HRSG, but the increased corrosion and corrosion product transport are common in these systems
where a reducing agent is fed after the condensate pump. This reducing agent flows into the LP
evaporator circuit, where the operating temperature and pressure is insufficient to decompose the
reducing agent, thus causing severe reducing redox (ORP) potentials, which are the primary
conditions (driver) for single-phase FAC.
The importance of cycle chemistry in HRSGs is discussed in later sections, and the information
is incorporated into the road maps of Section 3.
1.2 Background of Developed EPRI Technology for FAC Control
Although there were limited FAC programs in place before the Surry pipe rupture, it was not
until after this accident that utilities expanded their inspection programs to reduce the risk of pipe
ruptures caused by FAC in susceptible single-phase systems. Since the Surry incident in
December 1986, the industry has worked steadily to develop or refine their monitoring programs
to prevent the failure of piping due to FAC.
To support the nuclear industry effort, EPRI began developing the CHEC and CHECMATE
computer codes for predicting FAC wear rates in piping containing single- and two-phase flow.
These codes were developed specifically to assist the utility industry in planning and
implementing inspection programs to prevent FAC failures. The codes could also be used to
evaluate the effect of changes in piping design or operating conditions on FAC wear rates.
These codes predict the rate of FAC on a component-by-component basis to assist in prioritizing
1-5
inspections to find damage long before a failure might occur. The prioritization of inspections is
key to control of FAC as often plants have thousands of possibly susceptible components, and it
is not practical to inspect them all.
EPRI has continued to develop technology to help utilities control FAC, and in December 1993
(5)
released the CHECWORKS (Chexal-Horowitz Engineering Corrosion WORKStation) code .
In summary, CHECWORKS integrated and updated the capability of the previous codes, and
was written to take full advantage of the recent advances in computer technology. Additionally,
capability was added to help utilities manage related plant data and to automate many of the
analysis and reporting tasks conducted during an inspection outage.
The rupture of the feedwater line at the Pleasant Prairie fossil plant in 1995 led to many fossil
plant owners expanding and refining their FAC inspection programs. In reaction to this EPRI
(6)
developed CHECUP in 1996, to rank the relative rate of wall loss due to FAC at specific
piping locations in fossil and co-generation power plants and industrial steam plants. The use of
CHECUP is described in Section 5 and increases the confidence of plant owners and operators
that the most damaged components will be identified, inspected, and repaired or replaced long
before a rupture might occur. CHECUP also helps manage and interpret associated inspection
data.
In parallel with those efforts over the last 10 years the EPRI fossil plant cycle chemistry program
has focused on optimizing the feedwater treatments to minimize single-phase FAC(7-9). Particular
emphasis has been given to reducing the level of iron-based feedwater corrosion products, which
are the key on-line indicator of FAC. The fossil plant has more flexibility than a nuclear plant to
change the oxidizing-reducing potential in the feedwater, and major efforts have been directed
along these lines. Recently three types of feedwater treatment have been delineated(7): classic
AVT(R) (with ammonia and a reducing agent), AVT(O) (with only ammonia addition), and OT
(with ammonia and oxygen additions). In a conventional fossil plant, it is only possible to
address single-phase FAC by cycle chemistry optimization. Two-phase FAC (drain lines,
deaerator and shellside of heaters) must be addressed by materials solutions (increasing
chromium) as discussed in later sections.
The FAC mechanisms which occur in HRSGs have been fully described in EPRIs HTF
(11)
Manual. As in conventional plants single-phase FAC can be addressed by ensuring that the
feedwater operates on AVT(O) or OT. Two-phase FAC can however be addressed chemically in
an HRSG by increasing the LP evaporator pH if not restricted by the HRSG design. The
guideline for the cycle chemistry of HRSGs(12) was developed to address both single and two-
phase FAC. At this time there is not a predictive capability for HRSGs equivalent to
CHECWORKS or CHECUP.
This current Guideline represents a comprehensive approach which combines the key areas for
FAC control: prediction, inspection, and cycle chemistry.
1-6
This Guideline describes the organization and activities necessary to implement a successful
FAC program specific to conventional fossil and HRSG power plants and industrial steam plants.
Necessary elements of an effective FAC program are identified, and recommendations for
implementation are made. The reader should first turn to Section 3, which provides an overview
of the necessary activities in the form of road maps (Section 3.1 for conventional fossil plants,
and Section 3.2 for HRSGs). The detailed steps are described in the subsequent sections. This
document has been written to be of use to all fossil power plants and industrial steam plants
including combined cycle/HRSG plants.
The Guideline is directed at wall thinning caused by FAC in large-bore piping and in small-bore
tubing, such as economizer inlet header tubing and HRSG tubing. This document does not cover
other thinning mechanisms, such as cavitation, microbiologically-influenced corrosion (MIC),
and erosive wear. It is planned that this document will be periodically updated to reflect the
advances made in FAC control; as such this is the first revision of the 1997 Fossil Plant
(13)
Guidelines for FAC.
1.3 Mechanism of FAC in Fossil Plants.
The phenomenon of FAC is well understood(10). It is a process whereby the normally protective
magnetite (Fe3O4) layer on carbon steel dissolves in a stream of flowing water (single-phase) or
wet steam (two-phase). This process reduces or eliminates the protective oxide (magnetite) layer
and leads to a rapid removal of the base material until, in the worst cases, the pipe or tube bursts.
The FAC process can become rapid: wall thinning rates as high as 0.120 inch/yr (3 mm/yr) have
occurred. In fossil and HRSG plants the rate of metal loss depends on a complex interplay of
many parameters including the feedwater chemistry, the material composition, the other
materials in the feedwater systems, and the fluid hydrodynamics. Section 2 provides an
overview of the key features involved and includes a wide range of single-phase and two-phase
examples from conventional and combined cycle HRSG plants. The FAC mechanism is
discussed in detail and starts with the basic feedwater chemistries, and then provides a
description of the oxides which form under different oxidizing-reducing potentials (redox or
ORP). This leads finally to how the hydrodynamic factors influence FAC.
1.4 Corporate FAC Program Overview
It is important that a comprehensive set of procedures (or instructions) be developed to define the
overall FAC program, identify responsibilities, and control how various tasks are performed. For
utilities with multiple plants, it is recommended that the procedures (or instructions) be as
common to all plants as is practical. These procedures (or instructions) should be approved plant
documents that are updated as necessary to reflect plant and industry requirements.
Clearly a corporate FAC program needs to include personnel from various groups in the plant
(mechanical maintenance, chemists, technical, and operations) and in head office/research (NDE,
metallurgists, feedwater specialists, piping engineers). An overall corporate commitment is
essential to an effective FAC program.
1-7
The most successful way of ensuring full participation of the various groups is to develop a
corporate philosophy document signed by the upper management, which defines the overall
program and responsibilities. Such a document should include, as a minimum, the following
elements:
A corporate commitment to monitor and control FAC.
The means to provide adequate financial resources to ensure that all tasks are properly
completed.
The overall authority and task responsibilities are clearly defined, and that the assigned
personnel have adequate time to complete the work.
Identification of the position that has overall responsibility for the FAC program at each
plant.
Communication requirements between the lead position and other departments that have
responsibility for performing support tasks. Formalized sharing of data and information is
essential.
Ensuring that assigned personnel are properly qualified and trained for their area of technical
responsibility and that adequately trained, backup personnel are available.
Identification of the tasks to be performed (including implementing procedures) and
associated responsibilities.
Minimizing personnel turnover on the program, and providing sufficient transition when
turnover does occur to ensure that plant and industry experience is not lost.
Ensuring that FAC experiences at other plants are continuously monitored and evaluated.
Ensuring that appropriate quality controls are applied. This should include preparing and
documenting procedures for tasks to be performed, properly documenting work, and
providing for periodic independent reviews of all phases of the FAC program.
Developing a longterm plan and the identification of longterm goals and strategies for
reducing high FAC wear rates.
A method for evaluating plant performance against longterm goals.
There may be several thousand piping components in a given fossil power plant or combined
cycle plant that are susceptible to FAC damage. Without an accurate FAC analysis of the plant,
inspection drawings, and a piping database that includes inspection and replacement histories,
the only way to prevent leaks and ruptures is to inspect each susceptible component during each
outage. This would be a very costly inspection program.
A primary objective of the overall FAC program is to identify the most susceptible components,
thereby reducing the number of inspections (the size of this sample being a strong function of
both the plant susceptibility and the accuracy of the plant model and analysis method used). This
limited sample should be chosen to select the components with the greatest susceptibility to
FAC. Some plants have used a simplified approach, often involving rating factors for this
susceptibility analysis.
1-8
Plants that do not use a systematic, analytically based approach to FAC cannot be confident that
all highly susceptible components have been identified and are being monitored to prevent
leakage or rupture. Programs that are based purely on engineering judgment will require
inspection of an unnecessarily large number of inspection locations during each major outage
for piping and tubing systems alone to develop a high level of confidence in the adequacy of the
program. Experience has shown that until an adequate analysis of all susceptible systems has
been completed, plant personnel cannot be confident that the FAC program is adequate to
prevent a consequential failure.
For each susceptible segment, an analytical method should be used to predict the FAC wear rate,
and the estimated time until it must be reinspected, repaired, or replaced. The analytical model
can also be utilized for design studies. These studies are valuable for cost benefit evaluations
such as water chemistry changes, materials changes, and design changes, considering various
plant constraints for existing and new designs. The rankings of component types can be used as
relative rankings to assist in planning and carrying out the initial inspection program of a plant or
system.
Review and incorporation of industry experience provides a valuable supplement to plant

analysis and associated inspections. Utilities have found the following benefits from sharing
plant experiences:
Identifying generic plant problem areas where additional inspections may be warranted.
Understanding differences in similar types of components (e.g., FAC wear rates of
downstream piping are more severe when control valves made by certain manufacturers are
used).
Understanding the FAC consequences of using systems off-design (e.g., running bypass lines
full time).
Sharing information on costs, materials, qualified suppliers, repair or replacement techniques,
inspection techniques, new equipment, etc.
EPRI sponsors periodic FAC symposiums to discuss new technologies and to provide an open
forum for utility and industrial steam plant personnel to share FAC related experiences.
Good NDE inspections (Section 5) are the foundation of an effective FAC program. Wall
thickness measurements will establish the extent of wear in a given component, provide data to
help evaluate FAC trends, and provide information to refine the predictive model, if the
predictive model includes this feature. Thorough inspections are the key to fulfilling these needs.
Thorough inspection of a few components is much more beneficial to an FAC program than a
cursory inspection of a large number of components. One practice particularly not recommended
is recording only the minimum thicknesses ascertained by UT scanning of large-bore
components. Rather, a systematic method of collecting data is recommended. This will help to
increase repeatability and allow for the trending of results. Complete inspections may require
material sampling.
1-9
Cycle chemistry optimization (Section 6) will ensure that FAC is minimized depending on the
type of feedwater system (mixed-metallurgy or all-ferrous) and plant (conventional or combined
cycle).
1.5 How Good is My FAC Program?
Section 1.4 provided an overview of the minimum features of an adequate FAC corporate
program. This is initiated with a Corporate Mandate signed by the VP/Director of
Operations/Plant Manager. It is activated by on-going cycle chemistry optimization, prediction
of damage sites, and repair activities. However, this is often not good enough. Following a major
FAC trauma in the world, corporate managers of conventional and HRSG plants ask their staff:
Is our FAC program adequate?
EPRI has developed a Benchmarking Process (Appendix A) for conventional plants to provide
the answer. This process ranks the in-house FAC program from World Class to Below
Average, and takes into account whether the plant has all-ferrous or mixed-metallurgy
feedwater systems. To achieve Very Good or World Class status, an organization must be
a) using a predictive tool to identify susceptible locations, and b) cognizant that feedwater
chemistry in each plant needs to be optimized to minimize feedwater corrosion products.
For HRSGs, EPRI has developed a Benchmarking Process to assess overall HRSG performance.
Appendix B provides this Benchmarking Process and the reader should note that Factors B, D, E
and F address FAC.
1.6 Summary
In summary, the mechanism of FAC in fossil plants and combined cycle/HRSG plants is well
understood. Unlike nuclear plants, there are a number of variables which can affect the FAC
process and which can be changed or controlled to affect the FAC rate. The main ones are the
feedwater metallurgy and the feedwater chemistry. It should be clearly understood that the cycle
chemistry can be optimized to minimize single-phase FAC in conventional fossil plants, and both
single-phase and two-phase FAC in HRSG plants. This guideline brings together all the factors
for fossil and HRSG plants into a comprehensive approach, and describes the organization and
activities necessary to implement a successful FAC program specific to fossil and HRSG plants,
and industrial steam plants. It is believed that the implementation of these procedures will prove
to be a cost effective method of increasing personnel safety and plant availability. These
procedures also have the potential to reduce forced outages and thus increase the capacity factor,
while reducing the cost of plant operations and maintenance. The implementation of all the
activities found in this document will greatly reduce the probability of a consequential leak or a
rupture occurring.
1-10
The establishment and implementation of a longterm strategy is essential to the success of a plant
FAC program. This strategy should focus on reducing FAC wear rates, focusing inspections on
the most susceptible locations, and continually checking that the cycle chemistry is optimized for
minimum FAC. Monitoring of components is crucial to preventing failures. However, without a
concerted effort to reduce FAC wear rates, the number of inspections necessary will increase as
the operating hours increase, due to increased wear. In addition, even with selective repair and
replacement, the probability of experiencing a consequential leak or rupture may increase as
operating hours increase without optimizing the cycle chemistry.
The guideline is only directed at wall thinning caused by FAC in large-bore piping and small
bore tubing. This document does not cover other thinning mechanisms, such as cavitation,
microbiologically-influenced corrosion (MIC), and erosive wear.
The reader should first turn to Section 3, which provides the necessary overview of all the
activities needed in a successful FAC program in the form of road maps. The detailed steps are
described in the subsequent chapters. The FAC mechanisms are described in Section 2 together
with numerous examples.
1.7 References
1. Proceedings: Seventh International Conference on Cycle Chemistry in Fossil Plants, EPRI,

Palo Alto, CA: January 2004. 1009194.
2. Proceedings: Sixth International Conference on Cycle Chemistry in Fossil Plants, EPRI,

Palo Alto, CA: April 2003. 1001363.
3. Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on Cycle Chemistry in Fossil Plants, EPRI,

Palo Alto, CA: November 1997. TR-108459.
4. R. B. Dooley and J. A. Mathews, The Current State of Cycle Chemistry for Fossil Plants,
Fifth International Conference on Fossil Plant Cycle Chemistry. In Reference 3.
5. CHECWORKS Computer Program Users Guide, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: August 1994. TR-
103496.
6. CHECWORKS Fossil Plant Application - CHECUP Code, Version 1.0 User Guide,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1998. TR-103198-P5.
7. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: All-Volatile Treatment, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
November 2002. 1004187.
8. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Phosphate Continuum and Caustic
Treatment, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: January 2004. 1004188.
1-11
9. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Oxygenated Treatment, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
2005. 1004925.
10. Flow Accelerated Corrosion in Power Plants, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: July 1998.
TR-106611-R1.
11. Heat Recovery Steam Generator Tube Failure Manual, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: November
2002. 1004503.
12. a) Interim Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Combined Cycle HRSGs, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
November 1998. TR-110051.
b) The first revision of this guideline will be published at the end of 2005 as: EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA. 1010438.
13. Guidelines for Controlling FAC in Fossil Plants, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: November 1997.
TR-108859.
1-12
2
FAC MECHANISM AND EXAMPLES IN
CONVENTIONAL AND COMBINED CYCLE PLANTS
The phenomenon of FAC is well understood.(1) It is a process whereby the normally protective
magnetite (Fe3O4) layer on carbon steel dissolves in a stream of flowing water (single-phase) or
wet steam (two-phase). This process reduces or eliminates the oxide layer and leads to a rapid
removal of the base material until, in the worst cases, the pipe or tube bursts. The FAC process
can become rapid: wall thinning rates as high as 0.120 inch/yr (3 mm/yr) have occurred. The rate
of metal loss depends on a complex interplay of many parameters including the feedwater
chemistry, the material composition, the other materials in the feedwater systems, and the fluid
hydrodynamics. This section provides discussion on the FAC mechanism. For single-phase FAC,
this includes a description of the basic feedwater and HRSG evaporator chemistries and relates
these to the different oxides that form on the material surfaces under different oxidizing-reducing
potentials. This leads finally to how the hydrodynamic factors influence FAC.
The key differences between single-phase and two-phase FAC will be highlighted.
Finally, numerous examples are provided to illustrate the many facets of FAC in conventional
and combined cycle HRSG plants.
2.1 Mechanisms of FAC
2.1.1 Introduction to Single- and Two-Phase Flow and FAC
The FAC mechanism involves the dissolution of the oxide on the surface of the component. The
oxide on the surface is controlled by the chemistry of the fluid (feedwater or HRSG evaporator
water) in contact with the component. Thus understanding the solubility of the two oxides, Fe3O4
and FeOOH, that can form under reducing and oxidizing conditions, is of paramount importance
in understanding the FAC mechanism and how to control it. Many factors influence FAC and the
overall solubility of these oxides (Table 2-1).
2-1
FAC Mechanism and Examples in Conventional and Combined Cycle Plants
Table 2-1
Factors Influencing FAC in Fossil and HRSG Plants
1. Hydrodynamics
Velocity, geometry, steam quality, temperature and mass transfer
2. Water chemistry (feedwater in conventional and HRSG plants, and LP evaporator in HRSG)
ORP, oxygen and reducing agent
pH
3. Component material composition

carbon steel
chromium, copper and molybdenum
This section will address each of the factors to provide an understanding of the FAC process. But
first it is necessary to outline the overall fluid hydrodynamics for both conventional and HRSG
plants in terms of the FAC processes and failure mechanisms.
In the main feedwater line of conventional and HRSG plants, the fluid is essentially single-phase
water. Here the overriding influence for corrosion and FAC is the feedwater oxidizing-reducing
potential (ORP) or redox potential. For the carbon steel materials operating under reducing
feedwater chemistry the oxide formed is magnetite (Fe3O4), and its solubility is strongly
influenced by the reducing conditions. As shown in Table 1-3 this constitutes the highest
probability for FAC in a fossil plant with the highest solubility being around 150C (302F) as
shown later in this section. Simply changing the feedwater to an oxidizing treatment by
eliminating the reducing agent and/or adding oxygen will result in the formation of ferric oxide
hydrate (FeOOH). This reduces the solubility of the surface oxide by at least two orders of
magnitude in the temperature range up to about 300C (572F). Thus FAC, as an active
corrosion mechanism, will essentially be turned off.
In the drain lines, shell side of heaters and the deaerator of a conventional fossil plant, two-phase
flow will be predominant in certain areas of these pressure vessels. In these areas, it is not
possible to increase the oxidizing potential and thus materials solutions generally have to be
applied: weld overlay and temper bead repair (with chromium containing materials) or straight
replacement with chromium containing materials.
In HRSG low pressure evaporator circuits, which have both single- and two-phase flow, any
single-phase FAC can be controlled, as indicated above, by eliminating the reducing agent in the
feedwater so that it does not concentrate in the LP evaporator. To address any two-phase FAC, it
is necessary to increase the secondary controlling factor of evaporator pH by increasing the
feedwater pH (ammonia) or by adding a solid alkali (tri-sodium phosphate or NaOH) to the LP
drum if allowed by the circuitry.
2-2
2.1.2 Feedwater Chemistry for Fossil and HRSG Plants Controls the Oxide on the
Material Surface
Corrosion and FAC are a balance between the growth of the oxide on the metal surface and its
dissolution into the water. Under normal situations these two processes are approximately equal,
or their growth reaches an equilibrium situation; in either case an oxide forms on the surface
which provides protection. In the abnormal situation with FAC, the dissolution of the oxide into
the water is greater than its growth on the metal surface so that the remaining thickness is below
that needed to provide protection. In the most severe FAC cases, there is essentially no, or very
little, oxide on the surface. This applies to both single- and two-phase FAC. In both, it is always
the water phase that is responsible for the dissolution of the oxide.
Thus the generation of feedwater corrosion products represents a continuum: from the normal
and expected general corrosion to very high rates of FAC. Obviously the focus in fossil and
HRSG plants is to reduce FAC as much as possible, which is indicated by a minimum amount of
iron in the feedwater. The feedwater chemistry is critical to overall corrosion, FAC and
reliability of fossil and HRSG plants. There are three distinctly different feedwater treatments:
Reducing all-volatile treatment, AVT(R), which uses ammonia and a reducing agent. Here
the oxidizing-reducing potential ORP, should be in the range 300 to 350 mV
[Ag/AgCl/sat, KCl]. It should be noted that this range of ORP is not always achieved,
because ORP is a careful balance between the levels of oxygen and reducing agent, and
(5)
because ORP is a function of pH, temperature, materials, and the sensor characteristics.
Sometimes a reducing ORP can be as high as 80 to 100 mV.
Oxidizing all-volatile treatment, AVT(O), where the reducing agent has been eliminated.
Here the ORP will be around 0 mV but could be slightly positive or negative.
Oxygenated treatment (OT) where oxygen and ammonia are added to the feedwater. Here the
ORP can be as high as +100 to +150 mV.
A very achievable iron level for units operating with reducing treatments (AVT(R)) is less than
2 ppb of iron. For units operating with oxidizing treatments (AVT(O)), the iron levels can be
around 1 ppb or less. Optimum feedwater chemistry can accomplish both, and EPRIs new series
(2) (3) (3) (4)
of Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for AVT, PC, CT and OT contain a section on selecting and
optimizing the treatment. These are also outlined in Section 6 of this Guideline. Table 2-2
provides a comparison of the feedwater chemistry limits for AVT and OT as a function of
feedwater metallurgy.
2-3
Table 2-2
Comparison of Normal Feedwater Cycle Chemistry Limits for AVT and OT as a Function of
Feedwater Metallurgy
Parameter AVT(R) AVT(R) AVT(O) OT

Mixed-Metallurgy All-Ferrous All-Ferrous All-Ferrous
pH 9 9.3 9.2 9.6 9.2 9.6 D. 9 9.4

O. 8 8.5
Cation Conductivity (S/cm) < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.15
Fe (ppb) at EI <5 <2 < 2 (< 1) < 2 (< 0.5)

Cu (ppb) at EI <2 < 2* < 2* < 2*
O2 (ppb) at EI < 5 (< 2) < 5 (< 2) < 10 D. 3050

O. 30150
O2 (ppb) at CPD < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
Reducing Agent Yes Yes No No
ORP (mV) at DAI 300 to 350+ 300 to 350+ Oxidizing Oxidizing
Notes: EI - economizer inlet, CPD - condensate pump discharge, DAI - deaerator inlet,
D - drum unit, O - once-through unit
* - Copper alloys may be present in condenser.
+
- These ORP values are meant to be indicative of a reducing treatment where a reducing agent
is added to the feedwater, after the CPD, and oxygen levels are less than 10 ppb at the CPD.
However, ORP is a sensitive function of many variables and may under these conditions be as
high as 80 mV.
For HRSG plants with all-ferrous feedwater systems the feedwater chemistry should be AVT(O)
to avoid single-phase FAC in the feedwater and LP evaporator circuit.
For both fossil and HRSG plants, the basic idea of AVT is to minimize corrosion and FAC by
using deaerated high purity water with elevated pH. The pH elevation should be achieved by the
addition of ammonia; organic amines are not needed, required or recommended. The actual pH
range depends on the cycle metallurgy as indicated in Table 2-2. The use and application of
AVT(R) in either type of plant with all-ferrous feedwater systems can result in FAC as described
below.
In response to the problems of corrosion and FAC, OT and AVT(O) were introduced. The
primary difference between these treatments and AVT(R) is that the oxidizing-reducing potential
(ORP) will always be oxidizing. It is this basic change that provides the tremendous benefits of
reducing corrosion, eliminating active FAC, and minimizing corrosion product transport.
2-4
2.1.3 Factors Affecting the Growth of Magnetite with AVT(R) which are the Basis
for FAC
With AVT(R), the protective cover layer on the iron based materials (carbon steels) in the
condensate and feedwater systems up to about 300 C (572 F) consists almost exclusively of
magnetite.
3Fe + 4H2O Fe3O4 + 4H2 (2-1)
This reaction is considered to be the sum of two simultaneous processes:
First Process
A direct reaction occurs between iron and reducing water to form soluble species and
hydroxides. Reducing feedwater is considered to contain less than 10 ppb oxygen and a reducing
agent; this will give an ORP in the reducing range as indicated in Table 2-2. When iron corrodes
in an aqueous solution, both oxidation and reduction reactions occur at the anodic and cathodic
sites respectively.
At the anodic site, an oxidation process occurs which involves the dissolution of iron into iron
ions and free electrons:
Fe Fe2+ (solution) + 2e (2-2)
At the cathodic site, a reduction process occurs which is a gain of electrons. This is hydrogen
evolution:
2H+ (solution) + 2e H2 (evolved from the surface) (2-3)
In reducing alkalized water, the cathodic reaction:
2H2O + 2e 2OH + H2

(2-4)
Combining the anodic and cathodic reactions:
Fe + 2H2O Fe(OH)2 + H2 (2-5)
Both ferrous ions and ferrous hydroxide can be obtained according to an equilibrium reaction:
2+
Fe + 2OH

Fe(OH)2 (2-6)
Second Process
Magnetite forms through the Schikorr reaction:
3Fe(OH)2 Fe3O4 + H2 + 2H2O (2-7)
2-5
This reaction has been well described by Sweeton and Baes(6) and by Tremaine and LeBlanc.(7)
A schematic showing the growth mechanism and morphology of Fe3O4 under AVT(R) conditions
is shown in Figure 2-1. This protective magnetite is usually thin (< 30 m) and exhibits lots of
oxide hydrates and loose (non-protective) magnetite particles in the outer layers.
1 Fe = Fe2+ + 2e
2 H2O + 2e = 2 OH + H2
2 Fe2+ + OH = Fe(OH)+
2 Fe(OH)+ + 2 H2O = 2 Fe(OH)2+ + H2
3 Fe(OH)+ + 2 Fe(OH)2+ + 3 OH = Fe3O4 + 4 H2O
Figure 2-1
Schematic of Magnetite Growth and Morphology under Reducing AVT Conditions
The formation of magnetite (Reaction 2-7) is inhibited by increasing pH, which causes a
reduction of the Fe2+ and Fe(OH)+ ion concentrations corresponding to the solubility products of
Fe(OH)2 or the dissociation constants of the reactions:
Fe(OH)2 Fe(OH) + OH
+
(2-8)
Fe(OH)2 Fe2+ + 2OH (2-9)
Figure 2-2 illustrates how the corrosion and dissolution of magnetite is reduced by increasing
(8)
pH.
2-6
Figure 2-2
Corrosion Product Release from Carbon Steel as a Function of pH(8)
Figure 2-3 shows that the solubility of magnetite rises with increasing temperature, then
decreases with a steep drop to 300C (572F). This results in undesired magnetite deposits in this
temperature range. To maintain the solubility of ferrous hydroxide (Fe(OH)2) in the feedwater
below or equal to that of magnetite at around 250C (482F) and to exclude the possibility of
oversaturation, a minimum pH of at least 9.6 should be maintained.(9) A pH of 10 would be even
better, but is limited in the cycle if the unit has a copper tubed condenser.
The dissolution of magnetite into the reducing feedwater is also a function of potential. As
shown in Figure 2-4, decreasing the ORP leads to increasing amounts of iron in the feedwater.
This is, of course, the basis of single-phase FAC and the reason why all-ferrous feedwater
systems should be operated on AVT(O) (no reducing agent) or OT.
2-7
Figure 2-3
Solubility of Magnetite as a Function of Temperature at Various Ammonia
Concentrations.(9)
2-8
Figure 2-4
Change in Oxidizing-Reducing Potential (ORP) and Feedwater Iron Levels (Fe) at the
Economizer Inlet when Hydrazine (N2H4) was Gradually Reduced on a 600 MW Fossil Drum
Unit with an All-Ferrous Feedwater System
As shown in Figure 2-1, with AVT(R), the steel surface in contact with water is covered by a
magnetite layer. It consists of a topotactic and an epitactic part. As shown in the figure, this
dense topotactic layer grows directly on the surface of the steel; the more porous epitactic layer
forms above the topotactic layer. In the low temperature region, the topotactic part of the
magnetite layer is very thin and the Fe2+ ions are easily transported from the steel surface to the
oxide/water phase boundary through pores in the magnetite layer. The feedwater pH elevation
contributes to the formation of Fe(OH)2, which transforms (in the low temperature region
relatively slowly) to magnetite according to the Schikorr reaction (Reaction 2-7).
In the feedwater system, thermodynamic solubility equilibrium actually cannot be reached. For
this reason, the application of the known magnetite solubility data to real plant cycles is not
entirely practical. In most plant cycles, ferrous iron concentrations are comparable to those given
in Figure 2-2.
In summary the basic single-phase FAC mechanism is intimately linked to the use of reducing
treatments. For AVT(R) chemistry, the ORP is typically reducing and may be less than
300 mV, and the level of feedwater corrosion products will be less than 10 ppb. Most fossil and
HRSG plants can easily achieve 5 ppb; this situation is regarded as normal and not of major
concern from an FAC viewpoint.
2-9
However, for a unit with AVT(R) chemistry and high rates of FAC, the ORP will also be
reducing; but because of the local flow hydrodynamics, the total corrosion/dissolution process is
faster. In the worst cases, FAC will be so fast that there is only a very thin layer of Fe3O4 on the
surface. Figure 2-5 shows such a case. Importantly, the level of feedwater corrosion products can
be much more than 10 ppb.
Section 2.1.6 discusses how the factors in Table 2-1 affect the FAC process.
Figure 2-5
Carbon Steel Material in Reducing Feedwater at a Location with Severe FAC. Note very
thin Fe3O4 on surface.
2.1.4 Factors Affecting the Growth of Ferric Oxide Hydrate (FeOOH) with AVT(O)
and OT
Elimination of the reducing agent (AVT(O)) and/or addition of oxygen (OT) raises the free
corrosion potential of the steel by several hundred millivolts. The increase is especially distinct
in the temperature range below 150C (300F) (Figure 2-6).
2-10
Figure 2-6
Free Corrosion Potential for Carbon Steel as a Function of Oxygen and Temperature(10)
With these oxidizing treatments, the protective cover layer pores become plugged with ferric
2+
oxide hydrate FeOOH or ferric oxide Fe2O3 (see Figure 2-7). In this way, the Fe ion diffusion
from the steel surface through the pores in the protective epitactic cover layer to the oxide/water
phase boundary is strongly inhibited. The few ferrous ions leaving the steel are oxidized either in
the layer pores or right at the protective layer/water boundary. The following oxidation reactions
are assumed:(11)
2 Fe(OH)2 + 1/2 O2 + 2 H+ = 2 Fe(OH)2+ + H2O (2-10)
2 Fe(OH)2 + 1/2 O2 = 2 FeOOH + H2O (2-11)
2Fe(OH)2 + 1/2 O2 = Fe2O3 + 2 H2O (2-12)
2-11
Figure 2-7
Schematic of Oxide Growth and Morphology with AVT(O) and OT
For this reason, the ferrous ion concentration in the feedwater should be around 1 ppb under
AVT(O) conditions and below 1 ppb for OT conditions. Additionally, the ferric ion
concentration becomes almost undetectable. As an explanation of this fact, Figure 2-8 shows the
calculated solubility of ferric oxide -Fe2O3, ferric oxide-hydrate -FeOOH, and ferric
hydroxide.(11) This figure also shows the solubility field of magnetite plotted from Figure 2-3, and
illustrates the much lower solubility of the ferric oxide hydrates that form with oxidizing
treatments (AVT(O) and OT).
2-12
Figure 2-8
Solubility of Ferric Hydrate-Oxides at 0.5 ppm NH4OH (Data extracted from Reference 11)
Compared with Fe3O4 Solubility (extracted from Figure 2-3)
The corrosion of carbon steel materials in AVT(O) or OT is characterized in the initial phase
(steel without protective layer) by the topotactic (inner layer) transformation of individual ferrite
grains to magnetite. Here, ferrous ions escape into the fluid boundary layer. A part of these ions
is transformed epitactically (outer layer) directly to magnetite. For its formation, the following
total reaction is established.(12)
2+ +
3 Fe + 1/2 O2 + 3 H2O = Fe3O4 + 6H (2-13)
The cover layer morphology is determined by the reactions:(13)

+
2 Fe3O4 + H2O = 3 Fe2O3 + 2H + 2 e (2-14)
and
Fe3O4 + 2 H2O = 3 FeOOH + H+ + e (2-15)
Fe2O3 may occur also as an aging product. The result is a double oxide layer on the steel,
consisting of magnetite covered by a layer with a high hematite content as shown on Figure 2-7.
2-13
The corrosion product formation in the passive region is controlled by the diffusion of metal ions
through the passive film and is usually very small.(14) The following reaction is given for the
formation of hematite:
aging dehydration
3+
Fe + 3 OH -> Fe(OH)3 -> Fe2O3.nH2O -> FeOOH -> Fe2O3 (2-16)
Even with elevated temperature (up to around 300C, 572F), there is formation of the oxide
protecting layers which have a very low corrosion product release rate into the flowing water.
The major parameter for the adjustment of the desired free corrosion potential above the
passivation potential is the transport of the dissolved oxygen to the steel surface. A positive
effect is produced by:
An oxygen level increase (increase of the difference between the oxygen concentration in the
core flow and the oxygen concentration at the boundary steel/laminar sublayer).
An increase of the flow rate (reduction of the thickness of the laminar sublayer).
A temperature elevation (increase of the oxygen diffusion coefficient).
In summary, the oxidizing treatments (AVT(O) and OT) have the ability to deactivate the single-
phase FAC mechanism up to about 300C (572F). Under these conditions the ORP is greater
than zero (Table 2-2); conditions which favor the growth of FeOOH. This formation does two
things: i) reduces the overall corrosion rate because the diffusion (or access) of oxygen to the
base material is restricted (or reduced), and ii) reduces the solubility of the surface oxide layers
(Figure 2-8). Thus from an FAC perspective, this FeOOH layer dissolves much slower (at least
two orders of magnitude slower) than magnetite into the flowing feedwater, under exactly the
same hydrodynamic conditions that existed previously with AVT(R) chemistry. The overall
result is that the measured feedwater corrosion products can be much less than 1 ppb and FAC is
minimal. Figure 2-9 shows the protective oxide formed after one year on oxidizing feedwater
treatment; this is exactly the same area shown in Figure 2-5, which under reducing feedwater
treatment (AVT(R)) had suffered severe FAC and failure.
Finally it must be noted that not all feedwater systems in fossil and HRSG plants can run under
an oxidizing regime. This is discussed in the next section.
2-14
Figure 2-9
Metallographic Cross-Section through an Economizer Inlet-Header Tube After Operating
under an Oxidizing Feedwater Condition for One Year. The protective oxide formed on the
surface should be compared to that under a reducing condition which resulted in FAC
(Figure 2-5).
2.1.5 Importance of Feedwater Metallurgy for FAC in Fossil Plants
The feedwater system in fossil plants can consist of all-ferrous materials (all-ferrous system) or a
mixture of copper containing feedwater tubing and ferrous piping (mixed-metallurgy systems).
The exact configuration has important ramifications on the choice of feedwater chemistry, and
on FAC.
There are essentially two types of all-ferrous systems: those containing only carbon steel in the
tubing and piping, and those containing stainless steel tubing and carbon steel piping. As can
clearly be seen in Table 1-3 most of the serious FAC failures in fossil plants have occurred when
all the feedwater heater tubing (both LP and HP) is stainless steel, and the chemistry is AVT(R).
This implies that the reducing environment is more severe in the HP feedwater when the tubing
is stainless as compared to when the tubing is carbon steel or copper-based.
Mixed-metallurgy systems can only use AVT(R) feedwater chemistry(15) which maintains a
reducing environment under all operating regimes to protect the copper based tubing (Table 2-2).
This means that the carbon steel interconnecting piping and the economizer inlet tubing must
also be exposed to the same reducing environment. Review of the extensive EPRI database on
FAC and observation of Table 1-3 indicates that no serious FAC failures have occurred in fossil
plants with mixed-metallurgy systems; however wall loss associated with FAC has been
observed in these plants. This apparent anomaly relates to the fact that the copper alloys and
oxides act as a catalyst for the reaction between the reducing agent (hydrazine) and dissolved
oxygen in the feedwater. Because serious failures have occurred in nuclear plants with mixed-
2-15
metallurgy systems, the carbon steel components in mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems must
be subjected to the same rigorous FAC programs as for the all-ferrous systems.
2.1.6 FAC Influencing Factors
Sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 have described how the FAC mechanism is dependent on the solubility
of the surfaces oxides. Single-phase FAC essentially occurs with AVT(R) chemistry, where
magnetite is the surface oxide; its solubility peaks at around 150C (300F) (Figure 2-3). Severe
FAC occurs when the dissolution and exfoliation or spalling of magnetite from the surface is
greater than its growth on the pressure vessel/tube surface, thus increasing the amount of
particulate magnetite in the feedwater or LP HRSG evaporator. This section discusses the factors
which accelerate this dissolution process.
The FAC mechanism under reducing conditions is further illustrated in Figure 2-10. At low
velocities, the flow is laminar and essentially parallel to the surface of the metal or to the
adjacent streamlines. In this case the velocity varies from essentially zero near to the oxide/water
surface to a maximum at the centerline of the pressure vessel/tube. In this case, the growth of
Fe3O4 at the oxide/steel interface matches the dissolution. At higher velocities, the action of the
friction between the water and the oxide induces irregular fluctuating radial and axial velocity
components with flow. The fluid is mixed in a random manner and becomes turbulent. In this
case the growth of Fe3O4 cannot match the flow-accelerated dissolution, exfoliation and
spallation and the oxide thickness reduces and thus becomes less protective. This is FAC. In this
case, the levels of iron oxide (particulate) measured in fossil plant and HRSG feedwater systems
and in HRSG evaporator circuits are likely to be high, and can be over 1520 ppb.
Figure 2-10
Mechanism of the FAC in Flowing AVT(R). Note: Cs is the concentration of iron at the
oxide/solution interface (oxide solubility) and C is the bulk iron concentration.
2-16
It should be emphasized here, that while the discussion to this point has continually mentioned
that FAC relates to dissolution of Fe3O4 from the surface of the oxide layer under reducing
conditions, the amount of dissolved Fe3O4 measured in the water, under severe FAC conditions,
is not high enough to explain the rate based solely on dissolution. Under the turbulent conditions
discussed in the last paragraph, it becomes clear that particles of oxide are dissolved from
the surface (Figure 2-10). This could be described as exfoliation or spallation as above. High
monitored levels of iron, under severe FAC conditions, always consist of over 95% of
particulate iron. A similar mechanism was recently discussed to explain FAC in a CANDU
Nuclear Plant.(22)
As shown in Table 2-1, the rate of wall loss (FAC) is affected by the following factors: ORP or
redox potential (related to the balance between dissolved oxygen and reducing agent), pH of the
water, temperature, velocity, mass transfer, geometry and upstream influences, and alloy
composition.
Oxidizing-Reducing Potential, ORP (or Redox) is by far the most important factor for single-
phase FAC. It is important to note that in fossil and HRSG plants, the ORP is usually reported as
a voltage versus that of a Ag/AgCl (sat. KCl) reference electrode. ORP reflects the balance
between various conjugate redox systems and must not be confused with the corrosion
potential.(5) However, it does provide a useful indicator of the corrosivity of the flowing water.
ORP is sensitive to the materials of construction and to the temperature because of the effects of
temperature on the redox reactions.(5) ORP also changes with pH, partial pressure of oxygen in
the flowing water, mass transport properties and flow rates; thus ORP cannot be compared from
unit to unit.
Not only does ORP control the surface oxide that forms in feedwater or evaporator water,
AVT(R) or AVT(O) (or OT), but as the ORP becomes more reducing the greater is the
possibility for FAC (see Figure 2-4). Changing to AVT(O), by eliminating the reducing agent
and/or adding oxygen (OT), essentially reduces the possibility of dissolution into the flowing
water to very low values, even in areas where FAC was severe with AVT(R).
pH of the Water is the second most important factor as it also affects the solubility of the surface
Fe3O4 (Figure 2-3). Generally a higher pH will reduce the amount of corrosion and FAC. FAC is
directly related to the pH of the fluid in contact with the oxide surface at the hot operating
temperature, not the cold pH as measured in the feedwater or HRSG evaporator.
Temperature is important as it influences several of the fluid properties: the pH of the water or
wet steam, the solubility of the oxide layer, the rates of the oxidation and reduction reactions,
and the variables related to mass transfer (Reynolds, Schmidt and Sherwood numbers, fluid
density and viscosity, steam quality and void fraction). Laboratory data and field experience
indicates that FAC tends to peak at temperatures in the range of 150180C (300350F).
Velocity. There is a strong dependence of FAC on flow velocity. This is not simply determined
by the bulk fluid velocity but also by the factors which influence the local velocity: surface
geometry, flow path geometry and turbulence.
2-17
Mass Transfer is the process of transporting material (essentially magnetite) from the surface to
the bulk of the flowing water or water-steam flow. The local mass transfer coefficient depends in
a complex manner on fluid velocity, fluid viscosity, flow geometry, pipe/tube surface roughness,
steam quality and void fraction (for two-phase flow) and temperature. Mass transfer is usually
described by the dimensionless parameters: Reynolds, Schmidt and Sherwood numbers.
Geometry is the factor which locates where FAC will occur. Certain geometries affect mass
transfer due to changes in local velocity and turbulence. FAC does not often occur in straight
pipes or tubes, but is more often encountered at points of hydrodynamic disturbance. These
include elbows, tight bends, reducer tees, locations downstream of flow control orifices and
valves, and even fabrication discontinuities. The geometric enhancement of these features
generally increases turbulence. There is extensive literature on geometric factors, and they are
discussed later in this guideline (Section 4), especially in the context of using an analytical model
(e.g. CHECUP) to prioritize inspection locations.. Table 2-3 provides a comparison of
geometric enhancement factors from various investigators. These factors are related to the
velocity/turbulence created by the particular geometry or fitting. Larger values denote a greater
propensity for flow disturbance and thus turbulence, which increases the mass transfer
coefficients.
2-18
Table 2-3
Published Geometric Enhancement Factor Values for Piping Components with Single-
phase Flow as Used in Various FAC Models
Geometric Factors for FAC
Geometry or Fitting Keller(16) Chexal- Remy(18) Woolsey(19) Kastner(20)

Horowitz(17)
Straight Pipe1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

90 Elbow 5.75 to 13 3.7 2.1 1.7 6.0 to 11
Reducer (large end) 2.5 3.2
(small end) 1.8
Pipe Entry 4.0 2.5 3.58 to 6.24
Expander (large end) 3.0 3.6

(small end) 2.8
Pipe Expansion 2.0

Orifice 4.0 to 6.0 5.0 2.9 3.0 to 4.0
Tee: Flow (run) 3.74 5.0 5.7 2.0 to 2.5
Combination (branch) 5.0
Tee: Flow (run) 18.75 5.0 5.7
Separation (branch) 4.0
1. All the geometry factors are based on comparison with straight pipe.
Alloy Composition is important because even trace amounts of chromium (and copper and
molybdenum) can significantly reduce the solubility of magnetite, and thus of FAC. An alloy
with a nominal chromium content of 1% will have low or negligible FAC, and there is evidence
that amounts of chromium as low as 0.1% will significantly reduce FAC. Often organizations use
1.25% Cr alloys for replacement of FAC damaged areas. These alloys are also used in HRSG
evaporator circuits susceptible to FAC; however unless the feedwater and evaporator chemistries
are changed also, then FAC can continue to occur at other locations not changed to 1.25% Cr or
higher.
2.1.7 Two-phase FAC
As indicated in Table 1-2, two-phase FAC occurs in conventional fossil plant drain lines,
deaerators and on the shell-side of low pressure heaters. In combined cycle/HRSG plants it
occurs in low pressure economizer and evaporator circuits.
Two-phase FAC can occur whenever a highly turbulent steam-water mixture comes into contact
with a carbon steel surface. The ratio of the area occupied by vapor to the total pipe/tube area is
the void fraction. The mass transport, and hence the FAC rate, are impacted by changes in void
fraction. Void fraction and quality are not equivalent because the steam and water move with
different velocities. Steam quality has a significant effect because FAC can only occur if the wall
is continuously wet. FAC does not occur in dry steam. If steam quality is greater than zero, only
2-19
the liquid phase produces FAC damage. The two-phase flow regime is characterized by the metal
wall (oxide) being wetted by a flowing film of water which moves slower than the bulk two-
phase mixture. Generally two-phase flow is more turbulent than single-phase, and thus FAC is
greater.
As discussed in Section 2.1.7, FAC is not purely a dissolution phenomenon, but under severe
FAC conditions (turbulence), particles of Fe3O4 become the main content of iron in the fluid
(Figure 2-10). The same phenomenon happens with two-phase flow and FAC where the
exfoliation and spallation of the Fe3O4 from the surface is influenced both by the dissolution
and the surface turbulence.
As with single-phase FAC, the two-phase variety is limited to a maximum temperature of around
280300C (536572F), and is dependent on the solubility of the surface oxide (magnetite) and
the mass transfer coefficient (how easily the soluble magnetite can be transported from the
surface). To address single-phase FAC, the solubility of the surface oxide can be markedly
decreased by increasing the ORP to the oxidizing range by changing from AVT(R) to AVT(O).
It can also be decreased by increasing the pH of the liquid. For two-phase FAC, the option of
increasing the ORP cannot be applied because the very high partitioning of oxygen to steam
means that the oxygen level in the water adjacent to the surface is very low. So the main
(chemical) option is to try to increase the pH locally at the saturation temperature at the FAC site
on the surface oxide. Ammonia used in fossil and HRSG plant feedwater does not perform well
in these two-phase environments as its basicity decreases markedly with temperature and it
partitions to steam resulting in lower pH in the water adjacent to the surface. Several amines
have better distribution properties but are not acceptable in fossil and HRSG plants because of
the thermal degradation, breakdown products and increased cation conductivity levels
throughout the fossil and HRSG plants.
In conventional plants, the solution must be materials related, where the surface material
contains more than 0.5% chromium. A material or overlay with 1.25% Cr or higher is
recommended.
For HRSG evaporator circuits, the best option appears to be the use of a solid alkali, such as tri-
sodium phosphate or NaOH, providing the HRSG circuitry and attemperation systems allow.
Chromium containing alloys can be used at known FAC sites, but it must be recognized that
this only addresses FAC locally and not the root cause of the problem.
2.2 FAC Examples, Morphology and Locations in Conventional Fossil

Plants
2.2.1 Single-phase FAC in Conventional Fossil Plants
The predominant locations for single-phase FAC in fossil plants and the most recent and
historical rankings are shown in Table 1-2.
2-20
Figure 2-11 shows an example of an HP tube sheet in a feedwater system where all the HP and
LP heater tubing was manufactured in stainless steel. This is a good example of the dissolution
phenomenon, which is FAC. There is no evidence of any mechanical (erosive) damage. The
surface looks like an orange peel. There is also some evidence of FAC damage in the tube holes.
Figure 2-12 shows an FAC failure in an economizer inlet header tube. The nipple weld is shown,
and the damage starts between 12 in (2.55 cm) from the header bore. This is obviously an
extreme example of FAC. The typical orange peel appearance of single-phase FAC is clearly
evident on the inside tube surface.
Figure 2-13 shows a close up of the superficial appearance of FAC. Where the FAC is minor or
just initiating (towards the lower right of Figure 2-13) a series of pit-like features are evident on
the surface. In some cases these have a chevron or horseshoe appearance with the tip pointing in
the direction of flow. This chevron appearance is due to small turbulent effects near and on the
surface oxide causing dissolution of the oxide because of increased mass transfer. As FAC
becomes more severe then these chevrons overlap until, where the FAC is most severe, the
surface takes on the continuous scalloped or orange peel appearance. This scalloped appearance
usually occurs in areas where significant wall loss has occurred. If these areas are analyzed
metallurgically, then there will be very little oxide remaining on the surface (see example in
Figure 2-5). Thus when the area is first viewed, if often has the orange color of flash rust if not
protected from moisture during the shutdown process. When the oxide is very thin (less than
1 m or 0.00004 in) the surface often has a metallic appearance due to the almost transparent
film of oxide (magnetite).
Figure 2-14 shows a higher magnification view of the surface of an active FAC site which shows
the microscopic scalloped appearance.
2-21
Figure 2-11
FAC on an HP Feedwater Heater Tube Sheet. All HP and LP heater tubing in this unit was
stainless steel. The feedwater was AVT(R).
Figure 2-12
FAC Failure and Damage on an Economizer Inlet Header Tube. All HP and LP heater tubing
in this unit was stainless steel. The feedwater was AVT(R).
2-22
Figure 2-13
Typical Surface Appearance of FAC. The feedwater water flow was from top to bottom.
Figure 2-14
Typical Scalloped Appearance of Single-phase FAC as Viewed with a Scanning Electron
Microscope
2-23
2.2.2 Two-phase FAC in Conventional Plants
As indicated in Table 1-2, the predominant locations for two-phase FAC are drain lines (HP and
LP heaters), deaerator and the LP heater shell.
Figure 2-15 illustrates one of the typical appearances of two-phase FAC, which shows alternate
areas of fast and slow FAC which is sometimes call tiger striping. The black parts of the
surface are the severely corroded regions as there remains only a very thin oxide (magnetite)
layer. Sometimes these areas appear black or metallic-like due to the transparent film of
magnetite remaining on the surface.
Deaerators
Usually most of the deaerator is protected. For units operating under reducing feedwater
conditions (AVT(R)), this protected surface will be grey/black. For units with oxidizing
feedwater the protected areas will be red. Two-phase FAC occurs in deaerator vessels
primarily near to, and associated with, locations where fluids enter the deaerator. These might be
the cascading drains or extractions. At each of these locations, there is a difference in
temperature/pressure between the entering fluid and the bulk fluid in the deaerator, and thus the
fluid flashes upon entry into the deaerator. This provides a local two-phase (turbulent) media,
where any oxidizing power of the liquid on the surface is lost because of the partitioning of any
oxygen to the steam phase.
While these locations are, of course, present on units under reducing conditions (AVT(R)), they
are much more visible with units on oxidizing cycles (AVT(O) or OT), as the two-phase FAC
appears as black or shiny black discontinuities to the red surface protection. Figures 2-16 and
2-17 show two such typical areas where, in fact, severe FAC has already been previously
repaired with weld overlay. Figure 2-18 shows a good example where a number of different lines
enter the deaerator. The protected (red) areas are evident, as are the black areas where the two-
phase FAC occurs. Sometimes these black areas appear shiny black (almost enamel-like).
2-24
Figure 2-15
Typical Example of Tiger-Striping Appearance of Two-phase FAC
Figure 2-16
Severe Two-phase FAC in a Deaerator Located at a Fluid Entry Position
2-25
Figure 2-17
Severe Two-phase FAC in a Deaerator Located at a Fluid Entry Position: Note that the
Two-phase Damage has been Weld Overlayed Previously
Figure 2-18
Good Example of Diverse Areas of Two-phase FAC (Black) in an Area which is Generally
Protected (Red) Because of the Maintenance of Single-phase Flow
2-26
Low Pressure Heater Shells
Thinning of feedwater heater shells has been observed in nuclear plants since the 1980s. Many of
these incidents required repairs. Over the last eight years additional FAC in heater shells of fossil
plants has been reported.
Figure 2-19 shows a fossil plant example where a small leak was found. The ID surface shows
regions where the FAC was severe surrounding the leak, and also alternating fast/slower damage
(wavy appearance) further from the leak. This is a very typical appearance of two-phase FAC.
Figure 2-20 shows the location where severe FAC initiates and illustrates the dramatic loss of
wall thickness dependent on the FAC rate. Figure 2-21 shows that the surface where FAC occurs
has no protective oxide, and also illustrates the clear demarcation with the area where no FAC
occurs: here there is protective oxide and also deposition. It should also be noted (lower right)
that the FAC preferentially attacks the pearlite regions of the carbon steel.
Figure 2-22 shows a dramatic example of two-phase FAC in a LP heater shell. This unit was
operated on OT, and the red areas define where there is protection under the single-phase flow.
The black shiny areas illustrate where the two-phase flow occurs and cannot maintain the
protection because of the missing oxidizing power of the liquid in the two-phase media. These
two-phase areas are near to, and associated with, the location where the LP cascading drains
enter the heater from the next highest LP heater and flashes. This is shown on Figure 2-23
(second vertical pipe from the right). This emphasizes the need to identify the entry of the drains
and also to acquire information on the temperatures and pressures of the entering fluid compared
with those in the bulk of the heater. Figure 2-24 shows a nice NDE thickness survey of the shell
of this LP heater, illustrating the severe loss of wall thickness in the two-phase areas.
ID OD
Figure 2-19
Internal and External Views of Two-phase FAC on the Shell of a LP Heater. Note the
Typical Wavy Pattern of the Two-phase FAC on the ID.
2-27
Figure 2-20
Metallographic Cross-section through the LP Heater Shell Shown in Figure 2-19. The FAC
rate increases towards the right side of the figure.
0.00005 thick oxide scale

Up to 0.08 thick deposit plus occasional ribbons of
blistered magnetite
Figure 2-21
Further Metallographic Information of Figure 2-20 Showing the Demarcation Between
Areas that Have Not Suffered FAC (to the left) and Those Where Severe FAC Has Occurred
(towards the right). In the former areas there is a protective oxide (magnetite) and
deposition (lower left). In the latter (lower right) there is no protective oxide and the FAC
has preferentially attacked the pearlite (dark regions) of the carbon steel.
2-28
Figure 2-22
Two-phase FAC (Black/Shiny) Occurring on the Shell Side of the Lowest LP Heater Shell
on a Unit on OT. The red areas are protected by FeOOH in the single-phase areas.
Figure 2-23
Same LP Heater Shell as Shown in Figure 2-22. This one shows the location of the
cascading drain from the next highest LP heater (second vertical pipe from the right). Note
that the impingement plate is protected (red), indicating that the impinging fluid at this
stage is single-phase.
2-29
Figure 2-24
NDE Survey of the Two-phase FAC Damage on the LP Heater Shell Shown in Figures 2-22
and 2-23
Drain Lines
As indicated on Table 1-2, FAC damage in drain lines is the most predominant location in fossil
plants, and can be single- or two-phase because of the varying nature of the drainate. An example
of a drain line failure is shown in Figure 2-25. This is a catastrophic example. However, most
FAC drain line failures are small leaks or pin holes, which are most often quickly repaired by
maintenance staff by pad welding, weld overlaying or pipe section replacement with 1.25%
chromium material. The last is the preferred repair approach.
Figure 2-25
Illustrating the Catastrophic Nature of FAC Failures in Drain Lines
2-30
Single-phase and two-phase damage have already been illustrated previously in this section. It is
important to identify which is occurring and not simply allow the drain line to be repaired by the
temporary or palliative processes.
Single-phase FAC in drain lines is dependent on the operation of the heater vents. Usually on
units operating with a reducing environment (AVT(R)), the heater vents are open. Optimum
performance for units on OT requires the vents to be closed. Units operating on AVT(O) operate
under both conditions. When the vents are open, any residual oxygen (AVT(O) or AVT(R)) or
any added oxygen (OT), and some of the ammonia will exit through the vents due to partitioning.
Then there will be insufficient oxidizing power in the drain lines to provide single-phase
protection. Closing the vents on OT units (and under special circumstances for AVT(O)), assists
in increasing the oxidizing power of the media. Thus operation of the heater vents can be
optimized to produce an oxidizing environment in the drain lines, which should address single-
phase FAC. Two-phase FAC in drain lines cannot be satisfactorily addressed chemically, so
must be identified by prediction or iron monitoring, and subsequent inspection. As indicated
above, it is advisable in both cases to replace the susceptible drain line length with a 1.25% Cr or
higher alloy.
2.2.3 FAC in Conventional Fossil Plants with Mixed-Metallurgy Feedwater

Systems (Heater Tubing Contains Copper Alloys)
All the areas discussed in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are susceptible in mixed-metallurgy feedwater
systems. The major difference for these systems is that to minimize the corrosion of copper
alloys, the feedwater chemistry must be AVT(R) and thus requires a reducing agent and low
levels of air in-leakage (< 10 ppb oxygen at the condensate extraction pump). This essentially
means that the carbon steel interconnecting pipework throughout the feedwater line will be
reducing. See discussion in Section 2.1.5. It should, however, be noted (Table 1-3) that no
serious catastrophic failures have occurred in mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems, but that FAC
is common throughout the feedwater (Table 1-2).
2.2.4 Other Locations for FAC in Fossil Plants
FAC has been observed in other locations in fossil plants:

LP drain lines into the turbine exhaust prior to the condenser (Figure 2-26), and in the
condenser neck near to, and associated with, fluid entry (drains) (Figure 2-27).
Turbine diffuser and exhaust ducting from the last stage of the LP turbine (Figure 2-28). FAC
has also been seen on the casing between the stationary turbine blades, and in very bad cases
on the attachments of the stationary blades.(24)
Various boiler circulating water pump seal lines.
2-31
Figure 2-26
Example of FAC Damage in a LP Drain Line into the Turbine Exhaust Prior to the
Condenser
Figure 2-27
FAC Damage on Exhaust Hood at Condenser Neck. Note serious previous damage has
been repaired by attaching plates.
2-32
Figure 2-28
FAC Damage to Turbine Diffuser and Exhaust Ducting at LP Turbine Exhaust of a 450MW
Unit with a Drum Boiler. Note the Wavy Appearance Typical of Two-phase FAC.
Source: Jonas Inc.
2.2.5 Summary for FAC in Conventional Fossil Plants
Based on the understanding of the FAC mechanisms (Section 2.1), the various examples of FAC
(Section 2.2) and the results of the EPRI Benchmarking Process (Appendix A), the following
conclusions can be drawn for control of FAC in fossil plants:
Single-phase FAC can be controlled by feedwater chemistry. Table 2-2 provides the
optimum treatment guidelines for all possible feedwater systems and chemistries.
In all-ferrous feedwater systems, use of an oxidizing feedwater treatment (AVT(O) or OT)
will minimize corrosion and transport. Reference to the appropriate EPRI cycle chemistry
guidelines is required to ensure optimum treatment.
In mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems (copper alloys in the feedwater heaters) use of a
reducing feedwater treatment is required (AVT(R)) to provide protection to the copper
alloys. A careful balance is then required for the interconnecting carbon steel pipework.
Again reference to the appropriate EPRI cycle chemistry guideline is required.
For both all-ferrous and mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems, the optimum approach can
only be obtained by monitoring the iron and copper levels as indicated in Table 2-2.
Two-phase FAC will need a materials solution which involves using a 1.25% Cr or higher
alloy for weld overlaying or replacement.
2-33
Special attention and analysis is required for deaerators and LP heater shells. Inspection is
needed and again replacement or overlay is the optimum approach using a 1.25% Cr or
higher alloy. Here initial inspection can often be visual to identify the susceptible areas.
Drain lines should also be inspected and thinned or failed pipes replace with a 1.25% Cr or
higher alloy.
These examples and understanding of the mechanisms leads to the primary inspection priority
for fossil plants:
Units with stainless steel HP and LP heaters
Units with stainless steel in HP or LP heaters
Units with carbon steel heaters
Units with mixed-metallurgy heaters
2.3 FAC Examples, Morphology and Locations in Combined Cycle/HRSGs
2.3.1 FAC in HRSG Tubing
The latest statistics for HRSG tube failures are shown in Table 1-4, and indicate that FAC is the
second most important failure mechanism. Failures have essentially occurred in LP evaporators
and economizers, but a few failures have also occurred in HP economizers. As FAC occurs
across the temperature range 70 to around 300C (160570F) (Figure 2-3) with a maximum
near 150C (300F), overall the regions of concern are:
Economizer tubes at inlet headers
LP evaporator tubes especially at bends
LP drum internals
Horizontal LP evaporator tubes at bends
It should, however, be noted that IP evaporator tubes can also move into the susceptible range if
a triple-pressure HRSG is operated at reduced pressure.
FAC occurs equally in horizontal and vertical gas path units and is also common in LP drums.
Figure 2-29 shows a typical location in a horizontal gas path unit, and Figure 2-30 shows an FAC
failure. The typical location is associated with the dogleg or pant leg as the tube enters the
header.
The differences between single- and two-phase FAC have been discussed in Section 2-1. Both
types of FAC can occur in the LP evaporator circuits and it is important to recognize exactly
which type is occurring. Most of the LP evaporators in triple-pressure HRSGs operate at rather
low pressures (6080 psi, 0.40.5 MPa), which means that the fluid is two-phase. However, it is
possible to have both single- and two-phase FAC in these circuits. Figure 2-31 and 2-32 illustrate
2-34
examples and show the characteristics. In the cases of single-phase FAC, the damaged surface
typically exhibits an orange peel appearance as shown in Figures 2-31a and 2-32a. The other
characteristics of single-phase FAC are chevron marks or horseshoes towards the extremities of
the damage (slower FAC areas). In cases where two-phase flow is present, the appearance of
FAC is more scalloped or wavy-like as indicated in Figure 2-31b and 2-33. This is exactly as
seen in conventional plants (see Figure 2-19). In many cases, both types of FAC occur in the
same tube region. Single-phase FAC has occurred in circuits where two-phase flow
predominates; such areas may be at tight 180 bends. Often in these areas, the re-establishment
of two-phase flow after the bend is accompanied by blistered and/or box-like magnetite as
clearly shown in Figures 2-32b, d and e about one tube diameter downstream of the single-phase
FAC. Another important feature to note is the total lack of any protective oxide (magnetite) on
the tube surface in areas of severe FAC (Figures 2-31c and d and 2-32c). As in conventional
fossil plants, FAC preferentially attacks the pearlite colonies of the carbon steel (dark areas in
Figure 2-31d).
FAC
Economizers
LP Evaporator
Feedwater
Heater
Figure 2-29
Typical Location of FAC in a LP Evaporator of a Triple-pressure HRSG. The FAC usually
occurs in association with the dogleg or pant leg as the tubing enters the header.
2-35
Figure 2-30
FAC Failure in a LP Evaporator Tube Just Prior to the Header
(b)
(a)
(d)
(c)
Figure 2-31
Example of FAC in Vertical LP Evaporator Tubing. a) shows single-phase FAC, b) shows
two-phase FAC, and c) and d) show the lack of any protective magnetite on the tube
surface. The Arows in d) Point to the Preferential FAC Attack of the Pearlite Colonies in the
Carbon Steel
2-36
(b)
(a)
Box-like magnetite
(e)
(c) Blistered magnetite
(d)
Figure 2-32
Example of FAC in Horizontal LP Evaporator Tube. a) shows region of single-phase FAC at
tight 180 bend where flow is from left to right, b) and e) show typical formations of box-
like and blistered magnetite, and c) shows the lack of protective magnetite in the
severe FAC areas.
2-37
Scalloped Regions
Figure 2-33
Visual and Metallographic Characteristics of Two-phase FAC. Note Wavy Appearance
which is Typical in Tubes Damaged by Two-phase FAC.
It is rather important to note that the velocities in these HRSG components are generally low (up
to 3 ft/sec, 0.9 m/sec) in LP economizers and evaporators. The velocities in the riser tube to the
LP drum may be higher. The fact that these velocities are generally low confirms the
understanding of the FAC mechanisms (Section 2.1), that they are controlled by the water
potential (for single-phase) and by mass transfer. Thus the turbulent flow introduced by the
geometry increases the mass transfer. Gabrielli(21) illustrated by computational fluid modelling
that the turbulence in a 17 economizer tube bend is approximately twice that in a straight
section, and even higher in a 45 bend.
2.3.2 FAC in LP Drums
According to the EPRI statistics (Table 1-4), FAC has been observed in the LP drum of about
20% of HRSGs. Two examples are shown in Figures 2-34 and 2-35.
2-38
Figure 2-34
Example of FAC on the LP Drum Internals
Figure 2-35
Example of FAC on a Natural Circulation HRSG Drum Separating Device
2-39
2.3.3 Summary for FAC in HRSG Plants
Based on the understanding of the FAC mechanisms (Section 2.1), the various examples of FAC
(Section 2.3.2), and the results of EPRIs HRSG Tube Failure Reduction Program and HRSG
Benchmarking Process (Appendix B), the following conclusions can be drawn for control of
FAC in HRSGs:
Single-phase FAC can be controlled by feedwater and evaporator chemistry.
Most triple-pressure HRSGs contain no feedwater heaters or copper alloys and should run
on an oxidizing cycle (AVT(O)). This means that reducing agents should not be added to
HRSGs during operation or shutdown.
Some two-phase FAC can be addressed by LP evaporator chemistry by adding either tri-
sodium phosphate or NaOH to the LP drum provided that the circuitry allows. Reference to
(23)
the EPRI HRSG Cycle Chemistry Guidelines is required to ensure optimum treatment.
Some two-phase FAC is addressed by a materials solution. If obvious tube locations can be
identified then these should be replaced by 1.25% Cr or higher steel. Drum components can
similarly be replaced with 1.25% Cr or higher steel or austenitic stainless. An active
monitoring program for iron at the feedwater, LP, IP and HP drums will identify whether
FAC is active. A level of less than 5 ppb iron is a good level to aim for to ensure FAC is
inactive.
Inspection of the typical locations is required using a combination of internal visual and
ultrasonic thickness techniques.
2.4 References
2.4.1 Referenced in Text
1. Flow Accelerated Corrosion in Power Plants, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: July 1998.
TR-106611-R1.
2. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: All-Volatile Treatment, EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: November 2002. 1004187.
4. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Oxygenated Treatment, EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2005. 1004925.
5. R. B. Dooley, D. Macdonald and B. C. Syrett, ORPThe Real Story for Fossil Plants,
PowerPlant Chemistry, 5(1), pp 515: 2003.
6. F. H. Sweeton and C. F. Baes, J. Chem. Thermo., 2, p 479: 1970.
2-40
7. P. R. Tremaine and J. C. LeBlanc, J. Solution Chem., 9-6, p 415: 1980.
8. F. J. Pocock, J. A. Lux and R. V. Siebel, Control of Iron Pickup in Cycles Utilizing

Carbon Steel Heaters, Proc. Am. Power Conf., 28, Chicago: 1966.
9. P. Sturla, Oxidation and Deposition Phenomena in Forced Circulating Boilers and

Feedwater Treatment, Fifth National Feedwater Conf., Prague: 1973. (in French)
10. U. Rohlfs, Analysis of the Corrosion Characteristics and Protective Layer Growth in
Feedwater Heater Tubes of Unalloyed Steel, Ph.D. Thesis, Erlangen-Nrnberg University:
1983. (in German)
11. P. Sturla, Iron Oxides in Thermoelectric Cycles: Theoretical Aspects and Their Possible
Influence on Service, 1985 Fossil Plant Water Chemistry Symposium, pp 22-1 to 22-22,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1986. CS-4950.
12. P. H. Effertz, R. Klose and D. Wiume, Corrosion Processes and Protective Layer Growth
in LP Feedwater, Der Maschinenschaden 48, pp 208-213: 1975. (in German)
13. P. H. Effertz, J. Hickling, A. Heinz and G. Mohr (Eds.),Combined Ammonia/Oxygen

Conditioning Water Vapour/Steam Circulation Systems in Power Stations, Allianz-
Berichte No. 23: 1985.
14. F. J. Pocock. Prepared Discussion for the Paper Chemical Aspects of Magnetite Solubility
in Water, (G. Bohnsack), Proc. of the American Power Conf., 43, Chicago, IL, pp 1144-
1145: 1981.
15. Guidelines for Copper in Fossil Plants, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: November 2000. 1000457.
16. H. Keller, VGB Kraftwerkstechnik, 54, p 292: 1974.
17. B. Chexal and J. Horowitz, Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Environmental

Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power SystemsWater Reactors, Jekyll Island,
Georgia: 1989.
18. F. N. Remy, EDF Report, Ref. EC. 90. 83 B: 1991.
19. I. S. Woolsey, Proceedings of the IAEA Specialists Meeting on Corrosion and Erosion
Aspects of the Pressure Boundary Components of Light Water Reactors, Vienna, IAEA
Report: IWG-RRPC-88-1, Vienna, p 60: 1990.
20. W. Kastner, M. Erve, N. Henzel and B. Stellwag, Proceedings of the IAEA Specialists
Meeting on Corrosion and Erosion Aspects of the Pressure Boundary Components of Light
Water Reactors, Vienna, IAEA Report: IWG-RRPC-88-1, Vienna, p 49: 1988.
2-41
21. F. Gabrielli, Flow-Assisted Corrosion Failures/Water Chemistry Aspects, EPRI

Conference on BTF and HTF and Inspections, San Diego, Nov 2004. To be published in
2005 as Proceedings.
22. W. G. Cook and D. H. Lister, Some Aspects of Electrochemistry and Corrosion

Mechanisms Influencing FAC in CANDU Outlet Feeder Pipes, Intl. Conf. Water
Chemistry of Nuclear Reactor Systems, San Francisco, CA: October 2004.
Alto, CA. 1010438.
24. R. Svoboda, Alstom. Private Communication to B. Dooley. January 2005.
2.4.2 Bibliography on FAC in HRSGs

R. R. Harries and M. J. Willett, Flow Accelerated Corrosion in HRSGs: Interdependence of
Cycle Chemistry and Design, PowerPlant Chemistry, 3(12), pp 721-727: 2001.
A. Bursik, Chemistry in Cycles with HRSGs, PowerPlant Chemistry, 2(10), pp 595-599:
2000.
R. Svoboda, H. Sandman and F. Gabrielli, Steam/Water Cycle Chemistry: Current
Developments and Challenges in the Future, PowerPlant Chemistry, 2(2), pp 75-78: 2000.
2.4.3 Bibliography on FAC

R. B. Dooley and V. K. Chexal, FAC of Pressure Vessels in Fossil Plants, Intl. J. of
Pressure Vessels and Piping, 77, pp 85-90: 2000.
P. Berge and M. Bouchacourt, Flow-Accelerated Corrosion and Hydrazine, Eskom
International Conference on Process Water Treatment and Power Plant Chemistry, Midrand,
South Africa, November 25-28, 1997.
V. K. Chexal and J. S. Horowitz, Chexal-Horowitz FAC ModelParameters and
Influences, ASME PVP-Vol. B, Book No. H0976B: 1995.
I. W. Woolsey, G. J. Bignold, C. H. DeWhalley and K. Garbett, The Influence of Oxygen
and Hydrazine on the Erosion-Corrosion Behaviour and Electrochemical Potentials of
Carbon Steel Under Boiler Feedwater Conditions, Proc. Water Chemistry for Nuclear
Reactor Systems, 4, BNES, London: 1986.
2-42
3
OVERVIEW OF FAC PROGRAM FOR FOSSIL AND
COMBINED CYCLE/HRSG PLANTS
This section provides an overview of the total program necessary to control FAC in fossil
(Section 3-1) and combined cycle/HRSG (Section 3-2) plants.
3.1 Approach for Conventional Fossil Plants
The basic structure of the program for conventional fossil plants is shown in Figure 3-1, and
consists of a two-pronged parallel approach to the FAC problem: i) Inspection Based
Activities (Steps 610) and ii) Cycle Chemistry Based Activities (Step 11).
Any comprehensive FAC program for fossil plants cannot afford to only adopt one of the
activities of the two-pronged approach. They are critically linked together. The inspection
activities together with the application of the CHECUP/CHECWORKS predictive computer
codes have the proven capability of identifying those areas susceptible to FAC. The cycle
chemistry activities have the proven capability of reducing the generation of feedwater corrosion
products (FAC), and reducing and nearly eliminating active single-phase FAC depending on the
system metallurgy and the feedwater chemistry adopted.
The road map consists of 13 steps which are briefly described in this Section. All the details of
the steps are included in the subsequent Sections; the location of these details are delineated
within the step descriptions below.
Step 1 - Develop Corporate Program and Philosophy (Section 1.4)
It is well established within the fossil industry that the key to complex plant problems lies not in
only having a complete technical understanding, but ensuring that there is a corporate-wide,
coordinated program fully approved and sponsored by the senior management. Such a program
should include a broad range of utility personnel such as mechanical maintenance, NDE,
chemists and metallurgists. It has to have full cooperation of all the involved departments,
ensuring adequate financial and personnel resources, the up-to-date tools, and industry
knowledge. The minimum here would include the latest predictive computer codes and the latest
guidelines to optimize feedwater chemistry.
The type of information that should be included in the Corporate Philosophy statement is
discussed in Section 1.4. The management will require an on-going assessment of the
organizations FAC program. This can be accomplished by using the EPRI Benchmarking
Process for FAC on a frequent (6 month1 year) basis (Appendix A).
3-1
Overview of FAC Program for Fossil and Combined Cycle/HRSG Plants
Figure 3-1
Road Map of Activities for Controlling FAC in Fossil Plants
3-2
Step 2 - Develop Comprehensive FAC Program
In this step it is necessary only to fully appreciate that the overall approach to FAC must involve
both inspection based and cycle chemistry based activities in parallel and that this should be
included in the developed Corporate Philosophy document.
Step 3 - Review Design, Materials and FAC Experience (Section 4)
This step closely links with the similar review of cycle chemistry in Step 4. Here it is necessary
to fully identify and document all the feedwater materials in each one of the fossil plants in the
system. All relevant plant design and operations data should be obtained to use in understanding
plant susceptibility and in selecting inspection locations. This includes original design
information (temperature, pressure, etc.), as-built changes, plant modifications and replacements,
historical systems operation, past inspection data, and records of prior leaks and failures. To
address the two-phase FAC areas in the deaerator, drain lines and shell side of LP heaters, a
complete heat balance of the whole feedwater system will be required. In this way it will be
possible to identify the temperatures and pressures of fluid entering these pressure vessels
relative to the bulk temperature and pressure within the vessels. It is necessary to clearly
delineate all failures and maintenance activities in the feedwater systems, including the
deaerator, the economizer inlet header tubing, and all heater drain lines. This analysis should, if
possible, include any metallurgical analyses, as often FAC has in the past been identified
incorrectly as another mechanism (such as cavitation).
The primary inspection priority for fossil plants developed in Section 2.2.5 can be used to assist
in the analysis needed in this step.
The outcome of this step should be a clear and concise tabulation of definite FAC areas, any
possible FAC areas in each plant, and of locations which need to be included in the inspection
program (Steps 7 and 10). Obviously single- and two-phase areas must be included.
Step 4 - Review Cycle Chemistry Experience and Results
In this step, it is necessary to review the cycle chemistry experience of the units and to determine
if any of the problems identified in Tables 1-2 and 1-3 as well as those in Section 2.2 have
occurred in any of the feedwater systems. It is important to conduct the analysis for both all-
ferrous and mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems. A positive answer indicates possible FAC, and
a need to optimize the feedwater treatment (Steps 11a and b). It is also necessary to review the
feedwater corrosion product data at the economizer inlet and to determine if the values meet the
EPRI limits (Table 2-2). Excessively high values, and an inability to meet these limits on a
continued basis again may indicate a significant FAC problem somewhere within the feedwater
system.
Again it is also necessary within this step to review the current feedwater chemistry as a function
of the system metallurgy.
3-3
The details of this step are clearly and comprehensively covered by Step 1 of the road maps in
Figures 6-1 and 6-2 of Section 6.
The outcome of this step will be an indication of whether, and where, FAC is possible, which
feedwater systems may have a priority for inspection and need feedwater chemistry optimization.
Step 5 - Identify Susceptible Systems and Lines (Section 4)
All systems and lines in the plants should be reviewed against the susceptibility criteria to
identify those that need to be included in the inspection program. This is a key step to ensure
that a plant program to control FAC is complete.
Clearly if the review in Steps 3 and 4 indicates that FAC has occurred, or that there is cycle
chemistry evidence (high corrosion products which exceed Table 2-2 limits), then this unit will
become a priority. However, if no such evidence is discovered in Steps 3 and 4, then Tables 1-2
and 1-3 indicate those units where serious FAC has occurred in fossil plants and this could be
used, together with the information in Section 2.2.5, as a prioritization device. As indicated
there, the units most affected in terms of failure appear to be those with stainless steel feedwater
heater tubes; however, it must be recognized that FAC wall loss has also been found in mixed-
metallurgy fossil units, and serious failures have occurred in nuclear plants with mixed-
metallurgy systems; thus these units will also need inspecting.
Details on the selection and prioritization process are included in Sections 4 and 5.
Step 4 will also provide an indication of the need to optimize feedwater chemistry from both an
FAC and corrosion product transfer perspective. The full procedures of this process are
contained in Section 6.
Step 6 - Perform Initial FAC Analysis (CHECUP/CHECWORKS)
Procedures and recommendations are provided in Section 5 on how to systematically select

locations for inspection. The methods are based on the use of industry experience (Tables 1-2
and 1-3, and Section 2.2) as well as the developed analytical tools (CHECUP/
CHECWORKS) that can predict the rates of FAC.
Step 7 - Perform Initial NDE Inspections
In this step the actual initial plant NDE inspections are performed. The methods and procedures
(discussed in detail in Section 5) should accurately and cost-effectively inspect the components
for FAC wall loss and related damage. Methods and procedures are also provided on how to
evaluate the inspection data (Sections 5), and structurally qualify worn components for continued
service.
3-4
Step 8 - Material Sampling/Removal
Once any FAC wall loss or damage has been identified, then a sample of the pipe, tube, or
component should be taken for metallurgical analysis. This is an important step to ensure:
the wall loss or damage is FAC, or
the wall loss or damage is due to another mechanism such as cavitation, and
the wall loss or damage is currently active.
In situations where FAC is currently active, metallurgical analysis will indicate a very thin
magnetite layer on the material surface (see example in Figure 2-5). However, in cases where
FAC was active in the past then the oxide layer will be of approximately the same thickness as
the oxide in areas without any wall loss (see example in Figure 2-9). For cavitation, the
appearance within the wall loss region tends to look and feel sharp, as compared to the wavy or
orange-peel like surface of FAC. See Section 5 for other types of damage which may be
confused with FAC.
As was indicated in Section 2.1 and 2.2, it is very important that FAC is characterized as single-
or two-phase as different root causes will be responsible.
Step 9 - Perform Necessary Repairs/Replacements
Where unacceptable damage is found, the affected components need to be repaired or replaced.
The use of line or spool piece replacements using FAC resistant materials (1.25% Cr or higher)
are specifically recommended. The details are provided in Section 5.
Different solutions will need to be applied. Basically single-phase FAC in all-ferrous systems
can be addressed by ensuring the feedwater chemistry is oxidizing (AVT(O) or OT). Single-
phase FAC in mixed-metallurgy systems will have to be addressed through the monitoring
program of Step 11b and will required a careful balance to protect both the carbon steel and
copper alloys. Two-phase FAC in fossil plants will need to be addressed using a materials
solution involving 1.25% Cr or higher alloys. Drain lines should generally be replaced with
piping. Deaerator and LP heater shellsides, depending on the severity, will need either new plate
material or weld overlay/temperbead.
Step 10 - Subsequent Inspections and Analysis
A second inspection of each susceptible area and any additional sites identified during the FAC
analysis will be required, and the results inserted into the CHECUP/CHECWORKS codes
for repeat analysis. The subsequent inspections will be timed based on the results from Steps 6
and 7, and are designed to confirm the initial results and to obtain data for trending wear.
Remaining service life calculation procedures are provided in Section 5.
Details of the sample selection procedures for the original and the expanded locations are also
included in Section 5. The inspection procedures are provided in Section 5.
3-5
Step 11 - Optimize Feedwater Chemistry
Step 4 does not only provide key information that helps to prioritize the systems for inspection,
but also recognizes that the feedwater chemistry is not optimized and may be contributing to
FAC damage. Step 11 should be conducted in parallel with Steps 6 and 7. Separate approaches
need to be followed for all-ferrous (Step 11a) and mixed-metallurgy (Step 11b) feedwater
systems. The procedures are provided in Sections 6.1 and 6.2.
Step 12 - Safe Unit Operation
The results of the Inspection Based Activities will be an identification of those areas currently
susceptible to FAC and the rate at which FAC will progress if the cycle chemistry and other
hydrodynamic factors remain the same.
The results of the Cycle Chemistry Based Activities will be a feedwater environment that
produces minimum feedwater corrosion products in agreement with the EPRI guidelines
(Table 2-2). In all-ferrous feedwater systems the optimum treatment (oxidizing) will greatly
reduce FAC. In mixed-metallurgy systems, the optimum treatment (reducing) should be
developed to greatly reduce any FAC of the carbon steel components, and the corrosion of the
copper based tubing.
The overall result of the two pronged approach should be a unit where all areas of FAC have
been identified, and a feedwater treatment which has minimized the possibility of FAC causing
serious damage or failure.
Step 13 - Longterm Options and Continual Check
No utility can afford to be complacent with FAC and must adopt a policy of continual checking
of both the susceptible sites and of the feedwater chemistry. Clearly this continual check must
link back to Steps 10 and 11 respectively. Discussion of the continuing inspection activities is
provided in Section 7, and of the feedwater chemistry in Section 6.
The optimum process to provide a continual check of the organizations FAC program is to use
the EPRI FAC Benchmarking Process (Appendix A).
3.2 Approach for Combined Cycle/HRSG Plants
Section 2.3 provided details on FAC failures and damage in HRSGs. EPRIs overall approach to
FAC in HRSGs is outlined in Section 2.3.3, and is extensively covered in a series of documents
developed within the HRSG Dependability Program:
Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for HRSGs(1)
HRSG Tube Failure Manual(2)
Delivering High Reliability HRSGs(3)
3-6
Figure 3-2 illustrates the approach necessary for controlling FAC in combined cycle/HRSG
plants. It should be noted here that some preoperational features are included (Steps 1 and 2) as
FAC should be dealt with as a serious potential HTF during the specification and design phases.
Monitoring is a key feature needed during commissioning (Step 2). During operation a similar
two-pronged parallel approach to FAC, as suggested for conventional plants (Figure 3-1), should
be employed. Inspection based activities (Steps 4-7) and cycle chemistry activities (Steps 8-11)
are needed.
Note that there are no predictive or analysis tools available for HRSGs, but that both types of
FAC can be addressed by the cycle chemistry if the installed circuitry allows.
EPRIs HRSG Dependability Program has recently developed all the tools for FAC
identification, prediction and assessment, so cross-reference is provided to these documents.
Step 1 - Specify and Design HRSGs to Avoid FAC
The understanding developed in Table 1-4, showing the predominant FAC areas, and in Section
2.3 providing examples of FAC in HRSGs, has led to a set of guiding principles to avoid FAC in
HRSGs during the specification and design phases. EPRI published these in the document
(3)
Delivering High Reliability HRSGs. The basis was discussed in Section 2.3.3. Thus HRSGs
should be specified and designed with the following three key features.
No facility should be provided to add any reducing agent to the cycle to ensure that single-
phase FAC will not take place.
Monitoring/sampling points should be installed at the feedwater and for each drum (LP, IP
and HP) to ensure that iron can be monitored during commissioning (Step 2) and operation
(Step 8).
Facility should be provided to enable solid alkali addition to the LP drum in the event that
two-phase FAC is identified during the monitoring. This feature probably needs most thought
and consideration because it must be associated with designs where the LP drum does not
provide feed for the higher pressure cycles or for attemperation.
3-7
Figure 3-2
Road Map of Activities for Controlling FAC in Combined Cycle/HRSG Plants
3-8
Step 2 - Monitoring During Commissioning
This is a vital step in the life of an HRSG. But most often it is not accomplished
comprehensively. While extensive monitoring is required to confirm the overall cycle chemistry
for the HRSG, the primary reason for conducting monitoring at this stage is to check whether
FAC has been designed out, is occurring, or is still possible.
If the design has not included the use of a reducing agent, then this step identifies possible two-
phase FAC. If this has not been accomplished during design, then this step addresses single- and
two-phase FAC. In either case it is necessary to monitor for total iron at the feedwater and in
each drum.
The monitoring to be conducted is comprehensively covered in EPRIs HRSG Cycle Chemistry

Guidelines.(1) It involves:
Varying Operating Conditions - base load, startup, shutdown.
Steam Chemistry - cation conductivity, sodium, chloride, silica and sulfate.
Feedwater Chemistry - cation conductivity, chloride, corrosion products (Fe, Cu), oxygen,
and pH.
Evaporator Water (each drum) - cation and specific conductivity and Fe.
Operation of Condensate Polishers (if included)
This monitoring takes a thumb-nail of the HRSG under typical operating conditions. At this
stage in an HRSGs life, a good level of iron to aim for is around 5 ppb around the cycle. If the
iron levels at the feedwater, and in each drum are substantially higher than this, then the
organization may want to go straight to Step 8 to address optimizing the treatments.
Step 3 - Develop Corporate Program and Philosophy
This is the step where most organizations will enter the process because no prior attention has
been given to the possibility for FAC in an HRSG in the early phase of life.
Some iron monitoring may have been conducted and/or some early FAC damage or failure may
have taken place.
This step is basically the same as Step 1 for the conventional plants (Figure 3-1). The process
starts with a review of the possible failure sites (Table 1-4 and Section 2.3). All relevant plant
design and operating data should be obtained; this includes the detailed design of the various LP,
IP and HP economizer sections, and the LP evaporator and drum, past inspection and chemical
monitoring data. Single- and two-phase flow and FAC should be delineated.
The Corporate Philosophy (Mandate) document will need to include the type of information
included in Section 1.4. The program should include a broad range of personnel such as
mechanical maintenance, NDE, chemists and metallurgists, and should clearly delineate the
coordinator of the program.
3-9
The management will require an on-going assessment of the organizations HRSG FAC
program. This can be accomplished by using the EPRI Benchmarking Process for HRSGs on a
frequent basis (Appendix B), with particular emphasis on Factors B, D, E and F.
Step 4 - NDE Inspections
The methods and procedures for NDE in HRSGs are delineated in the HRSG NDE Guideline.(4)
Currently the approach involves a combination of visual (including fiber optics) and ultrasonics.
Step 5 - Materials Sampling
Once there has been an FAC failure or FAC has been identified either by NDE (Step 4) or
excessive iron levels (Step 8) during monitoring, then a sample should be removed for analysis.
The key need here is to identify whether single- or two-phase FAC has taken place. Maybe both
types have occurred in the same tube or section. The identifying tools are provided in
Section 2.3.
Step 6 - Repair and Replacement
As indicated in Section 2.3.3, both types of FAC in the LP evaporator can be addressed by the
chemistry as in Steps 9 and 10. However, the tubing should be replaced with 1.25% Cr alloy
(T11). FAC in the economizer sections will need replacement with this alloy. Tube repair is
(5)
addressed in EPRIs HRSG Materials and Repair Guideline.
Step 7 - Subsequent Inspections
Once any tube repairs have been made, or the feedwater (Step 9) and/or the evaporator treatment
(Step 10) have been addressed, and further analysis still indicates a high level of iron (Step 11),
then further chemical analysis (repeat of Step 8) and further NDE (repeat of Step 4) will be
required.
Step 8 - Monitoring Iron Levels around the HRSG Cycle
This step involves similar activities as described in Step 2. Extensive detail is included in EPRIs
HRSG Cycle Chemistry Guideline.(1) For FAC the monitoring needs to concentrate on iron levels
around the cycle (feedwater, LP, IP and HP drums). Overall the goal should be to reach less than
5 ppb at each location as a good indicator that FAC is minimized or eliminated.
Basically at this phase in an HRSGs life, there are two cases to consider:
a) If a facility for adding reducing agent to the cycle was not included during the design phase
or the reducing agent was removed during commissioning or early operation, or
b) If a reducing agent is still being added to the feedwater.
3-10
Figure 3-3 shows the differences between these two cases. With a reducing agent being used, it is
likely that iron levels are high (greater than 10-20 ppb) in a number of circuits. In some units, the
iron levels around the cycle will generally reduce to less than 5 ppb once the reducing agent is
eliminated. However, if two-phase FAC is predominant in one circuit, then it is likely that the
iron levels will be above 5 ppb.
35
Fe ppb with N2H4 (2 years data)

30
Fe ppb without N2H4 (1 year data)
25
20
15
10
0
Cond BFP #1 BFP #1 HP #1 HP #1 HP #1 IP #1 RH #2 BFP #2 HP #2 HP #2 HP #2 IP #2 RH
Suct Disch Drum Sat SH Stm Drum Stm Disch Drum Sat SH Drum Stm
Stm Stm
Figure 3-3
Measured Iron Profiles around an HRSG when Operating With and Without a Reducing
Agent (Hydrazine).
If the iron levels are generally less than 5 ppb, then the monitoring suggests that the HRSG is
currently operating with little prospect for FAC, and the operators can continue normal operation
in Step 12.
If the iron levels remain generally high, then depending on whether they are high in the
feedwater or in one of the drums, the road map approach suggests moving to Step 9 or 10
respectively.
Steps 9 and 11 - Addressing FAC in the Feedwater by Monitoring and Adjusting

the Feedwater Chemistry
If Step 8 indicates feedwater corrosion product levels above the 5-10 ppb level as indicated in the
example in Figure 3-3, then analysis is required of the feedwater treatment. This situation usually
relates simply to the continued use of a reducing agent injected after the condensate pump in
association with good air in-leakage control, which provides less than 10 ppb oxygen at the
condensate pump discharge. As thoroughly discussed in Section 2.1, these reducing conditions
do not have the ability to minimize corrosion and feedwater corrosion product transfer in the
3-11
feedwater. In this step, a test should be conducted (as described in Section 6.1), where the
reducing agent is eliminated in steps or at one time. A repeat of the monitoring conducted in
Step 8 will be required, through Step 11, to assess the new feedwater treatment.
Occasionally during early operation, high iron levels in the feedwater could relate to inadequate
preoperational chemical cleaning, or to no preoperational clean.
Steps 10 and 11 - Addressing FAC in the Evaporator Circuits by Monitoring and

Adjusting the Evaporator Treatment
If Step 8 indicates evaporator corrosion product levels above the 5-10 ppb level as indicated in
the example in Figure 3-3, then analysis is required of the applied evaporator chemistries. It is
possible that the elimination of the reducing agent in Step 9 will also have a major benefit on the
iron levels in the drum, as again is clearly indicated in Figure 3-3. However, in some cases the
iron levels may remain high due to two-phase FAC in the evaporator circuits.
As discussed in Section 2.3.3, two-phase FAC is not addressed by increasing the oxidizing
power of the (evaporator) water. In this case, there is a need to increase the pH of the water
droplets/phase in the two-phase mixture. This can be accomplished by the addition of tri-sodium
phosphate or NaOH to the LP drum, or by increasing the ammonia levels in the feedwater so that
the pH approaches 10. Optimum alleviation of two-phase FAC has been achieved by the former
approach. In this step, a test should be conducted of adding a solid alkali to the drum using the
monitoring approach conducted in Step 8.
It must be noted again here that it is not always possible to add a solid alkali to the LP drum in
many HRSGs because this drum feeds the higher pressure circuits and may be used for
attemperation of HP or reheat steam. In these cases it will be necessary to activate the inspection
and repair route (Steps 4 and 6).
Step 12 - Continued Operation
Only once the cycle chemistry of the feedwater and evaporator (drum) treatments have been
optimized, and the inspection/repair process has been completed can the operator feel that FAC
is under control or manageable.
The optimum process to provide a continual check of the organizations HRSG FAC program is
to use the EPRI HRSG Benchmarking (Appendix B).
3-12
3.3 References
Alto, CA. 1010438.
2. Heat Recovery Steam Generator Tube Failure Manual, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: November
2002. 1004503.
3. Delivering High Reliability HRSGs, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2003. 1004240.
4. Interim Guidelines for the Nondestructive Evaluation of HRSGs, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
2004. 1004506.
5. HRSG Material Selection and Repair Guidelines, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1004875.
3-13
4
IMPLEMENTING THE FAC ROAD MAP
The road maps for managing FAC damage in conventional, fossil steam plants and in heat
recovery steam generators (HRSGs) in combined-cycle combustion turbine plants were
introduced in the previous section. Each road map presents two major paths of activities
required to fully control FAC damage and prevent in-service failures. The inspection-based
activities path will be covered in detail in Section 5 and serves two main functions within the
overall FAC program: 1) to establish a baseline for FAC damage that may currently exist in a
plant that has been operating, and 2) to provide longterm management of FAC damage that may
continue to occur in plant components that cannot utilize cycle chemistry processes to prevent
FAC. Importantly and as presented in previous sections, the factors contributing to the FAC
damage mechanism in conventional fossil and HRSG units are not tied solely to design and
materials such that damage over time is inevitable. The critical roles of water chemistry and
metallurgy in the corrosion process mean that units may or may not have sustained damage
during prior operation. This reality drives the need for baseline assessment of damage within an
FAC program.
The cycle chemistry-based activities included in Section 6 are directed at preventing FAC
damage by stopping the corrosion process and represent the major longterm strategy for
managing FAC in both conventional fossil and HRSG units. This section will briefly cover basic
activities that will be required for all units as part of a formal program to manage FAC damage.
It is emphasized that FAC efforts must be developed on a unit-specific basis because of the
complex interaction of metallurgy, chemistry, hydrodynamics, and operations in producing FAC
damage. These factors make it unlikely that units of identical design actually behave
identically with respect to FAC damage.
4.1 Information Gathering
An essential first step in implementing the FAC road maps is to gather appropriate unit
information to assess susceptibility of unit components to FAC damage. This information will
be referenced frequently in the pursuing specific actions in both the inspection and cycle
chemistry paths. The following subsections summarize the unit data that will be needed.
4.1.1 Plant Design and Materials
It is critical that all available plant design information be obtained for use in identifying potential
problem areas and developing a program to control FAC. Typically this information would
include:
4-1
Implementing the FAC Road Map
Plant heat balance diagram, along with operating conditions (pressures, temperatures, flow
velocities, steam qualities) of major lines and equipment such as feedwater heaters and
deaerators. For HRSGs, economizer and evaporator section information needs to be
included.
Piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs, also known as flow diagrams).
Piping isometrics, including as-built changes.
Description of plant modifications to FAC susceptible lines and connected equipment (e. g.,
feedwater heaters, control valve stations, etc.).
Records of past repairs and replacements (very important)
Piping line lists.
Piping and equipment materials.
Orifice openings.
Discharge coefficients and opening areas of control valves.
Locations of any known backing rings or counterbore.
Design information of any special or field fabricated components (e. g., field fabricated tees,
mitered elbows, etc.).
4.1.2 Operating Experience
Relevant plant operating experience should also be obtained to incorporate into the plant FAC
program. This might include:
Records and data concerning prior FAC inspections.
Observations from prior inspections or maintenance of in-line equipment (e.g., was any wall
loss found in valves opened for maintenance, what did the downstream pipe look like?).
Locations of prior leaks and failures, including locations of field repairs.
Information from plant operators concerning systems currently being used or historically
used differently than designed.
Cycle chemistry parameters and changes over time (this information will be reviewed in
detail in Section 6).
4.2 Identify and Prioritize Susceptible Systems and Lines
The first evaluation task in the unit FAC program is to identify all piping systems, or portions of
systems, and vessels that could be susceptible to FAC. FAC is known to occur in piping systems
made of carbon and low-alloy steel with flowing water (single-phase) or wet steam (two-phase).
All such systems should be considered susceptible to FAC. The unit line list, if available, and
the Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs) can be used to ensure that all potentially
susceptible systems are included in the program. HRSG units will need to include evaporator
4-2
sections in their FAC program. Note that some lines supplied by an equipment vendor are often
not on the unit line list or shown on the P&IDs. Care should be taken to ensure that such
susceptible lines are included in the FAC program. Additionally, this evaluation should be
periodically reviewed to ensure that it is kept current with unit design changes and ways that
systems are being operated. Clearly, each conventional fossil and HRSG unit will have a large
number of systems and components that will be susceptible to FAC damage. The critical next
step is to prioritize efforts such that any serious damage is detected and addressed as early as
possible.
4.2.1 Exclusion of Systems From Evaluation
Some susceptible systems, or portions of systems, can be excluded from further evaluation due to
their relatively low level of susceptibility. Based on both laboratory and industry experience, the
following systems can be safely excluded from further evaluation:
Systems of stainless steel or low alloy (nominal chromium content equal to or greater than
1.25%) steel piping. This exclusion pertains only to complete piping lines manufactured of
FAC-resistant alloy. If some components in a high alloy line are carbon steel (e.g., the
valves), then the line should not be excluded. Also, in lines where only certain components
or sections of piping have been replaced with an FAC-resistant alloy, the entire line,
including the replaced components, should be identified as susceptible and analyzed. Note
that high chromium materials do not necessarily protect against other damage mechanisms,
especially cavitation and liquid impingement erosion. Thus, if the wear mechanism has not
been identified it is not prudent to exclude the replaced components from the inspection
program.
Superheated steam systems with zero moisture content, regardless of temperature or pressure
levels. Drains, however, from superheated steam systems should not be excluded
automatically. Experience has shown that some systems designed to operate under
superheated conditions may actually be operating with some moisture in off-normal or
reduced power level conditions. Care must be exercised not to exclude such systems.
Raw water systems, such as service water (high dissolved oxygen content).
Single-phase systems with a temperature below 200F (93C) (low temperature). A note of
caution is made that, if measurable wall loss is identified in nearby piping operating slightly
above 200F (93C), then it is recommended that the systems exclusion be reconsidered.
Importantly, there is no temperature exclusion limit that can be recommended for two-phase
systems. Note that other damage mechanisms, such as cavitation, are predominant below
200F (93C) and need to be taken into account. This document, however, does not address
these other damage mechanisms.
Systems with no flow, or those that operate less than 2% of plant operating time (low
operating time); or single-phase systems that operate with temperature > 200F (93C) less
than 2% of the plant operating time. Note that if the actual operating conditions of the
system cannot be confirmed (e.g., potential leaking valve, time of system operation cannot be
confirmed), or if the service is especially severe (e.g., flashing flow), that system should not
be excluded from evaluation based on operating time alone. A further cautionsome lines
that operate less than 2% of the time have experienced damage caused by FAC. These lines
4-3
include feedwater recirculation, and steam line drains downstream of traps. Such lines should
be excluded only if no wear has been observed and continued operation under existing
parameters is assured.
It is recommended that a list be developed of the systems excluded from the FAC program. The
list should note the basis for the system exclusion. This list should be appropriately documented
and periodically reviewed. It has proven useful to have plant operating personnel review the list
of excluded systems.
Systems should not be excluded from evaluation based on low pressure. Pressure does not affect
the level of FAC wear. Pressure only affects the level of consequence should a failure occur. A
failure in a low pressure system could have significant consequences (e.g., failure in a low
pressure extraction line). Also, arbitrary ranges of velocity or other operating conditions should
not be used to exclude a system from evaluation.
The systems excluded by these criteria will not experience significant FAC damage over the life
of the plant. However, it should be noted that such systems could be susceptible to damage from
other corrosion or degradation mechanisms. These include cavitation erosion, liquid
impingement erosion, intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC), microbiologically-
influenced corrosion (MIC) and solid particle erosion. These mechanisms are not part of an FAC
program and should be evaluated separately.
4.2.2 Prioritize Units and Systems For Evaluation
Importantly, each conventional fossil or HRSG unit contains a significant number of components
susceptible to FAC damage. Expanding the unit-specific level to a fleet of units within an
organization further increases the potential scope of work to be performed under an FAC
program. It is, therefore, essential to put in place a prioritization plan that focuses resources on
the most at-risk systems. The subsections below will provide initial guidance in prioritizing
units both from a conventional fossil unit perspective and from an HRSG perspective. Industry
experience, as reviewed previously, clearly offers an effective tool for the initial prioritization
efforts.
4.2.2.1 Conventional Fossil Units
Analysis (summarized in Section 2.2.5) of the serious incidents of FAC (major bursts of pipes
and tubes, and fatalities) in conventional fossil power plants and industrial steam plants provides
a very clear priority or ranking order of units that are susceptible to FAC damage and should be
inspected to establish baseline condition:
Units with all stainless steel tubing in feedwater heaters, HP and LP.
Units with stainless steel tubing in feedwater heaters in either HP or LP trains.
Units with carbon steel tubing in feedwater heaters.
Units with mixed-metallurgy (copper alloys) tubing in feedwater heaters.
4-4
The feedwater heater drain lines are susceptible locations on all units and currently account for
the most frequent occurrences of FAC damage (Table 1-2). This situation is especially true in
units with all-ferrous feedwater heaters, if the heaters operate with the vents open then this
releases much of the dissolved oxygen content, thus increasing the probability of FAC.
The next level of prioritization is to determine the large list of susceptible systems on each unit.
All of these systems must be evaluated. However, if time or resources are limited, it may be
necessary to prioritize the scheduling of evaluations. The following is a reasonable, first-order
listing of priorities:
1. Large-bore piping.
2. Susceptible small-bore piping and tubing with the most significant consequences of failure.
(essentially economizer inlet tubing from the economizer inlet header and heater drain lines)
3. The remaining small-bore piping.
A failure in a large-bore piping system has potentially more significant consequences to

personnel safety and plant availability, and thus these should be given first priority. Analysis
and inspection of all susceptible large-bore piping systems is recommended. At a minimum,
initial inspections of large-bore systems should be conducted at the next scheduled outage, if
they have not yet been performed. For purposes of FAC evaluations, large-bore piping is
defined as piping with a nominal diameter of greater than 2.5 inches (63.5mm).
Recommendations are provided in Section 5 for inspecting large bore piping.
Although the consequences of failure may be less, problems with small-bore piping and tubing in
general, and socket-welded fittings in particular, have been experienced. FAC-related leaks and
ruptures, some resulting in plant shutdowns, have been reported in small-bore lines. For the
purpose of FAC evaluation, small-bore piping and tubing is defined as both butt-welded and
socket welded piping and tubing with a nominal diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 inches
(63.5mm).
The number of inspections performed for small bore piping and tubing is plant dependent.
Economics could determine the extent of inspections performed versus wholesale replacement
with FAC-resistant materials.
Use of EPRI CHECUP software to help prioritize actual inspections by component in FAC
susceptible systems will be discussed in Section 5. The objective of this second tier
prioritization is to improve the cost-effectiveness of the inspection process and is not intended to
replace this unit-by-unit prioritization.
4-5
4.2.2.2 HRSG Units
HRSGs do not typically have feedwater heaters, and the prioritization of units for FAC actions
does not focus on consideration of feedwater heater tubing metallurgy. More critically for
HRSGs, the FAC prioritization should include a review of low pressure evaporator tube failures
and the chemistry treatment used for the feedwater as discussed in Section 2. Units currently
operating, or previously operated, on all-volatile treatment (AVT) with addition of a reducing
agents such as hydrazine should be given priority for FAC assessment.
4.3 Initiation of Action Paths
After selection of a unit for FAC assessment, parallel paths are shown on the road maps for
conducting both inspection-based and cycle chemistry-based actions. Both paths must be
pursued within the FAC program. For units that have operated, FAC failure experience,
inspection results, and cycle chemistry data must be collected and evaluated. Detailed
information will be provided in Sections 5 and 6. Note that inspection-based actions are
intended both to provide a baseline of FAC damage due to prior operation and to identify and
manage those systems and components in which FAC control cannot be maintained via
optimized cycle chemistry treatment. For conventional fossil plants and HRSGs, cycle chemistry
control will be the major focus for longterm control of FAC damage.
4.4 Documentation
In the implementation of a formal FAC management program, organizations must establish clear
and comprehensive documentation for actions completed and for planned actions. For example,
it is recommended that the susceptibility evaluation be fully documented in a unit-specific,
calculations package, including the input received from plant operating personnel and
identification of lines in the program and identification as to why certain systems and lines are
being excluded from the program. As will be discussed in Sections 5 and 6, this susceptibility
analysis package will be then linked to results from inspections and to cycle chemistry practices
to provide control over FAC damage to components in the unit. Importantly, tracking and
documenting cycle chemistry parameters used to show FAC control will be an essential task
within the overall documentation effort. This will both demonstrate that the program is complete
and allow successor personnel to understand what was done and to form the basis for deciding
what program changes may be needed as a result of plant modifications or changes to plant
operations.
4-6
5
INSPECTION-BASED ACTIVITIES
This section presents the steps and corresponding actions in the implementation of the
inspection-based activities under an FAC program for conventional fossil plants and HRSGs. It
is again emphasized that these actions should be pursued in parallel with the cycle chemistry
optimization efforts presented in Section 6. Early implementation of appropriate cycle chemistry
treatments per Section 6 can prevent FAC damage from occurring. The inspection-based
activities are intended to address two major needs within the FAC program:
Establish a baseline for FAC damage that may already exist in an operating unit, and
Provide a life management process ensuring replacement or repair prior to in-service failure
for FAC susceptible components for which root cause FAC control via water chemistry or
metallurgical upgrade cannot be implemented.
For conventional fossil plants and HRSGs, it is expected that a majority of FAC susceptible
components and systems, especially those operating with single-phase water, can avoid FAC
damage through operation with appropriate cycle chemistry conditions. There is, however,
likely to be a subset of susceptible components that will require periodic inspection and eventual
replacement per the actions covered in this section. Components operating under two-phase
conditions (wet steam) are a particular set that, per the discussion in Section 2, will likely require
specific life management actions.
5.1 Performing FAC Analysis
Once the FAC susceptible piping systems and other unit components have been identified, it is
recommended that an FAC analysis be performed. The analysis will be focused on identifying
highest risk components within susceptible systems and can incorporate past unit FAC damage
experience, industry experience, engineering judgment, and computational models.
As used in the remainder of this document, the following definitions apply:
Predictive Methodology - A predictive methodology uses formulas or relationships to predict the

rate of wall thinning in a specific piping component type such as an elbow, tee, or straight run.
The predictions need to be based on factors such as the component geometry, material, and flow
conditions. An example of a predictive methodology is the Chexal-Horowitz correlation
incorporated in the CHECWORKS and CHECUP codes(1,2,3).
A predictive methodology should incorporate the following attributes:
5-1
Inspection-Based Activities
Take into account the geometry, operating time, temperature, velocity, water chemistry, and
material content of each component.
Address the range of hydrodynamic conditions (i.e., diameter, fitting geometry, temperature,
quality, and velocity) expected in a power plant. It is desirable to have the ability to calculate
the flow and thermodynamic conditions in lines where only the line geometry and the end
conditions are known.
Consider the water treatments commonly used in power plants. The water chemistry
parameters that should be addressed are the pH range, the concentration of dissolved oxygen,
the reducing agent, and the oxidizing/reducing potential.
Cover the range of material alloy compositions found in power plants.
Use the hydrodynamic, water chemistry, and materials information discussed above to
predict the FAC wall loss rate accurately. The model should be validated by comparing its
predictions with wall loss measured in power plants.
Provide the user with the wall loss rates of components.
Provide the capability to use measured wall loss data to improve the accuracy of the plant
predictions (if a full featured analysis program such as CHECWORKS is used).
The developer of the predictive methodology should also periodically review the accuracy of
the predictive correlations and refine it as necessary.
Predictive Plant Model - A Predictive Plant Model is a mathematical representation of the power
plant's FAC susceptible lines and systems. Typically it utilizes a computer code which
incorporates the attributes defined above. The Predictive Plant Model should also be developed
on a system-by-system basis using a logical and unique naming convention for each system.
Note that predictive models are biased to provide conservative results when used with default
parameters. Initial use model results should only be to establish re-inspection intervals.
Benchmarking of results with actual unit data may allow refinement of predictive results over
time.
Analysis Line - An Analysis Line is one or more physical lines of piping that have been analyzed
together in the Predictive Plant Model.
All results from the FAC analysis must be documented within the FAC program effort. The
initial analysis will serve to identify high priority systems and components for inspection and to
categorize, in conjunction with the cycle chemistry optimization actions described in Section 6,
those systems and components for which longterm FAC control can be achieved via root cause
actions. For conventional fossil plants, EPRI developed the CHECUP predictive model to
assist in single-phase FAC evaluations. This model may also be applied to the feedwater piping
in HRSG units. The CHECUP model does not analyze two-phase situation in either piping or
vessels, such as feedwater heater shells and deaerators, and thus cannot be applied to HRSG
economizer or evaporator tubing. The purpose of the CHECUP analysis is to predict relative
FAC wall loss rates in the large number of analysis lines that comprise a typical feedwater
system. This analysis provides a consistent, technical basis for prioritizing actual inspections for
FAC damage. Only after the actual inspection data is acquired should the remaining service life
5-2
be determined. Note that individual operating units may select any analytical tool that covers
the necessary plant design, operating, and water chemistry conditions as described above.
5.2 Selecting and Scheduling Components For Inspection
An initial inspection is recommended to determine the actual level of damage that may have
been sustained by FAC susceptible systems and components during prior service of the unit, to
identify any components with unacceptable damage, to collect data to determine FAC trends, and
to benchmark the results from a Predictive Plant Model (CHECUP or similar) to more
accurately predict future wall loss.
In these guidelines, the initial inspection is defined as the first inspection outage at which the
inspection locations for a given Analysis Line1 were selected based upon a Predictive Plant
Model. It is recognized that many organizations have already performed some inspection
activities for FAC damage. Under a formal FAC program, this information should be collected
and reviewed by the FAC team. Experience has shown that until a comprehensive analysis of all
susceptible systems has been completed, a high degree of confidence cannot be established that
all highly susceptible locations have been identified and are being controlled or monitored to
prevent leakage or rupture. It is recommended that, where feasible, an FAC analysis be
performed for each large bore susceptible system using a Predictive Plant Model to help select
the inspection locations. The components selected by this process that have not been inspected
previously should be inspected at the next scheduled plant outage.
Components are selected for the initial inspection by means of a three-step process for each
Analysis Line:
1. Select a sample of the most potentially susceptible components from both the ranking
analysis and plant and industry experience. (Table 1-2 provides a summary of recent industry
experience and Section 2.2.5 provides an initial inspection priority based on feedwater
equipment.)
2. Conduct inspections of this sample. If any of these inspections reveal significant FAC wall
loss, expand the sample to identify significant loss in other components.
3. As the sample inspections are completed, determine the measured wall loss of each inspected
component. Utilize these measured loss rates to calculate the predicted remaining FAC
service life for each inspected component. See Subsection 5.7.3 for the method of
calculating predicted remaining service life. Additionally, the inspection plan should be
modified if necessary to account for the inspection results.
Additional details for each of these steps are provided in the subsections that follow.
1 See definition of analysis line in Subsection 5.1.
5-3
5.2.1 Sample Selection
The selection of components to be inspected is typically driven by industry and unit experience,
engineering judgment, and application of predictive models. The use of predictive models
allows consistent comparison between the various lines and their variable conditions within a
feedwater piping system. The use of the CHECUP software code for this purpose will be
summarized in Section 5.3. The following general guidelines are provided for selecting
components for the inspection sample of each Analysis Line:
1. Select a sample from the component geometries identified in the wear ranking as having the
highest relative wear. To the extent practical, the sample should include components from
each geometry type present in the Analysis Line (e.g., elbows, reducers, expanders, tees,
valves, orifices, equipment nozzles, piping downstream of other components, etc.).
Engineering judgment should be employed to ensure that the most representative sample of
the items with the highest probability of damage be examined. For example, if the three
highest-ranked components are elbows, and the first tee in the rankings is the sixth highest
ranked item, then that tee should be inspected in preference to the third ranked elbow.
However, if the highest ranked tee is the hundredth item, it should not replace the third
ranked elbow.
2. If previous inspections and remaining life analyses have been performed, select one or more
components with the shortest relative remaining service life, if they are not included in the
sample of (1) above.
3. A minimum of one component should be selected from each parallel train in a multi-train
line. These components should be in similar locations for the purpose of comparing results. It
is recommended that this location be one of the highest ranked items in the relative wear
ranking.
4. Include components immediately downstream of control valves and orifices. These locations
should be included in each train of multi-train lines. Note that locations downstream of
control valves and orifices are also often susceptible to damage caused by cavitation or
droplet impingement.
5. Include all known and potential FAC problem areas based on past plant experience and past
experience in sister plants.
6. Consider all applicable locations known from industry experience to be high-FAC areas in
other plants (Table 1-2).
7. Consider components that have been replaced in the past and any components within two
diameters downstream of replaced components, or within two diameters upstream if the
replaced component was an expander or expanding elbow. Ensure that the piping
downstream (upstream in the case of an expander) be included in this consideration.
8. Consider unusual geometries, including field fabricated tees and laterals2 and locations
known to have backing rings.
2 Special attention is recommended for field fabricated tees and laterals as they sometimes have protuberances into
the flow stream (increasing local turbulence) and they often lack structural reinforcement.
5-4
9. Based on EPRI experience, the size of the sample based on the wall loss ranking should be a
minimum of 3 to 5 components per Analysis Line, depending upon the number of
components in the Analysis Line, the predicted loss rate, and the line complexity.
CAUTION: The recommended sample size of 35 components per Analysis Line is based on
the demonstrated accuracy of the CHECWORKS and CHECUP computer codes. If other
methods are used to select inspection locations, then the sample size used should be justified.
5.2.2 Expanded Sample Inspection

1. When inspections of the sample selection detect significant FAC damage, the sample size for
that Analysis Line should be increased to include the following:
a) Any component within two diameters downstream of the component displaying

significant damage or within two diameters upstream if that component is an expander or
expanding elbow.
b) A minimum of the next two most susceptible components from the relative wall loss
ranking in the same train as the piping component displaying significant wear.
c) Corresponding components in each other train of a multi-train line with a configuration

similar to that of the piping component displaying significant wear.
2. When inspections of the expanded sample of (1) above detect additional components with
significant FAC wear, the sample should be further expanded to include:
a) Any component within two diameters downstream of the component displaying

significant wear, or within two diameters upstream if that component is an expander or
expanding elbow.
b) A minimum of the next two most susceptible components from the relative wear ranking
in the same train as the component displaying significant wear.
3. When inspections of the expanded sample of (2) above detect additional components with
significant wear, the sample expansion of (2) above should be repeated until no additional
components with significant wear are detected.
The above selection process should be reviewed with other personnel involved in the
implementation of the FAC program.
5.2.3 Inspection Locations for Lines with Uncertain Operating Conditions
Certain large bore systems, or portions of systems, such as auxiliary steam and gland steam, may
have unknown (e.g. unknown moisture content in two-phase flow, etc.) or widely varying
operating conditions which prevent the development of reasonably accurate analytical models.
These lines are sometimes called susceptible non-modeled lines. Inspection locations on these
lines should be conservatively selected using a combination of engineering judgment, industry
experience, and plant experience.
5-5
It is recommended that special consideration be given to the following locations:

Downstream of orifices
Downstream of flow control valves and level control valves
Nozzles
Tees and laterals, particularly field fabricated tees and laterals
Complex geometric locations such as components located within two diameters of each other
(e.g., an elbow welded to a tee)
Components with backing rings and counterbores
If initial inspections detect significant FAC caused thinning, then the inspection sample should
be expanded using the criteria of Subsection 5.2.2 (1) (a) and (c).
5.2.4 Inspection Locations for Lines that Cannot be Analyzed Using The Selected
Predictive Methodology
Certain predictive methodologies cannot analyze all potential FAC susceptible lines even if
operating conditions are known in those lines (e.g. two-phase lines). For these lines the guidance
of Subsection 5.2.3 should be followed with the additional recommendation that a minimum of
one location in each two-phase line of piping should be selected for inspection.
5.3 CHECUP Summary
EPRI's CHECUP technology was developed specifically for fossil, co-generation, and
industrial steam plants to rank the amount of wall loss that may have occurred at various piping
locations due to FAC. It can also be used for the feedwater piping of HRSG units, but not for
economizer or evaporator tubing. This increases the confidence of plant owners and operators
that the most damaged components will be identified, inspected, and repaired or replaced long
before a rupture might occur. Importantly, for the large number of piping runs and components
that is potentially susceptible to FAC damage, CHECUP provides a technical basis for
selecting higher FAC risk locations for inspection from among the many possibilities. This
provides a cost benefit in reducing the number of inspections required to characterize the level of
FAC damage for a specific unit. As was presented in Section 2, the material and chemistry
conditions drive the FAC mechanism with the hydrodynamics setting the rate of damage.
CHECUP provides an analysis basis for the hydrodynamic factors.
CHECUP predicts the wall loss of single-phase piping segments and components since plant
startup. A piping segment is a portion of a line that has the same size, material, and operating
conditions. Input data for a segment includes its material, pipe size, operating temperature, flow
rate, system identification, dissolved oxygen, water treatment, condensate cold pH, and number
of operating hours since plant startup. Provision is made for selecting component types from a
library of previously analyzed geometries. A typical input screen for CHECUP is shown in
Figure 5-1. Output data is the predicted wear of common types of piping components with some
parametric variations of uncertainties as shown in Figure 5-2.
5-6
Figure 5-1
Sample Input Screen for CHECUP FAC Analysis
Figure 5-2
Sample Output Report from CHECUP FAC Analysis
5-7
Key features of CHECUP include:

All data input for a segment on one screen.
Ability to quickly evaluate operation at reduced or cycling unit loads.
Built-in properties of standard pipe sizes and common piping materials.
Built-in correlations of cold pH and water treatment (ammonia, several amines) with hot pH
(hot pH impacts the rate of FAC).
Sensitivity of results to plant variables- material alloy content (AC), temperature, oxygen
content and cold pH is also shown.
Results can be easily evaluated to aid in the selection of inspection locations.
It is emphasized that the FAC results from CHECUP are intended primarily for prioritizing
inspection efforts and are not intended to provide accurate prediction of FAC damage. Actual
inspection results are to be used to trend FAC damage and estimate remaining service life. This
inspection process is reviewed in the next section.
5.4 Perform NDE Inspections
The NDE inspection techniques, FAC analysis procedures and remaining life calculations are
included in this Section. The results from these activities are to be reviewed by the FAC team
and combined with the results from the cycle chemistry optimization path to establish the unit-
specific, longterm strategy for managing FAC. For example, if inspection results confirm that no
FAC damage has occurred in a line in which cycle chemistry FAC controls can be initiated or
maintained, then this chemistry action becomes the longterm control strategy and further
inspection would not be scheduled. The chemistry control strategy must be fully documented in
the FAC program, key chemistry parameters must be monitored and recorded, and chemistry
data should be periodically reviewed. For components or lines in which chemistry control is not
achievable, a periodic inspection process will be undertaken to ensure repair or replacement of
FAC damaged components prior to in-service failure.
5.4.1 Inspection Techniques
Components can be inspected for FAC damage using a variety of techniques. Key techniques in
current use are ultrasonic testing (UT), radiographic testing (RT), visual testing (VT), and
pulsed-eddy current testing (PEC).(4,5,6,7) UT provides the most accurate measurement of wall
thickness but requires that the inspection be performed during a unit outage with insulation
removed from the area to be inspected. RT and PEC can be performed on insulated lines and
components but do not provide as accurate data as UT. UT, RT and PEC methods can be used to
investigate whether or not wear is present. However, the UT method provides more complete
data for measuring the remaining wall thickness. Visual techniques, such as direct observation
or use of video camera probes, are often used for examination of very large diameter piping and
vessels where inside access is possible. VT should be followed by UT examinations of areas
where significant damage is observed or suspected. As noted in Section 2, the morphology of
FAC damage in feedwater heaters and deaerators operating under oxidizing chemistry conditions
5-8
can provide an obvious visual indicator in the form of the color of the inside surface. Protected
areas will appear red, while damaged areas will appear black.
For HRSGs, the same techniques from above may be used on accessible piping and other
components. FAC damage (both single- and two-phase) that occurs in the LP evaporator tubing
sections presents additional challenges for inspection since access to the tubing is generally very
limited. EPRI is currently investigating opportunities for inspecting such sections via inside
diameter (ID) access and using visual, UT, and eddy current testing (ECT) techniques.(8)
5.4.2 Ultrasonic Testing Inspections
For large-bore piping, the recommended UT inspection process consists of marking a grid
pattern on the component and using the appropriate transducer and data acquisition equipment to
take wall thickness readings at the grid intersection points. If the readings indicate significant
thinning, the region between the grid intersection points should also be scanned, or the size of the
grid reduced to identify the extent and depth of the thinning.
Although scanning the entire component and recording the minimum thickness is not
recommended, scanning within grids and recording the minimum found within each grid square
is an acceptable alternative to the above method.
The inspection data is used for three purposes:

1. To determine whether the component has experienced wear and to identify the location of
maximum thinning.
2. To ascertain the extent and depth of the thinning.
3. To evaluate the wear rate and wear pattern to identify any trends, if data from multiple
inspections is available.
To attain all three of these objectives, it is recommended that the component be inspected using a
complete grid with a grid size sufficiently small as not to miss worn areas (see Subsection
5.4.2.2). Although scanning will meet the first two objectives, it will not provide sufficient data
to determine component wear rates or to develop sufficient data to perform a detailed stress
analysis of a worn component. Further, scanning is of limited use in trending the wear found.
High temperature paints, china markers, or other marking devices should be used to identify the
grid intersection points where the measurements will be taken. This will ensure that future
inspections can be repeated at the same locations. It is good practice to mark at least one
location, such as the grid origin, with a low stress stamp or an etching tool. This provides a
means of re-establishing the grid if the markings are obscured. Note that approved marking
materials should be used when gridding components. Templates may also be used to achieve
repeatable measurements.
5-9
When a component is to be replaced with another component made of a non-FAC resistant

material, the new component should be appropriately gridded and baseline UT data obtained.
This requirement can be waived for the situation where cycle chemistry parameters will be used
during future operation to control FAC for the replaced component. The new component should
also be examined visually to observe the eccentricity, surface, roughness, local thinning, such as
is caused by depressions in the surface, etc. These data should be recorded and will provide a
good baseline for determining future component wear. Additionally, if there is any evidence that
some of the wear may have been caused by a mechanism other than FAC (e.g., cavitation or
droplet impingement), then consideration should also be given to developing an appropriate
inspection program to address the suspected phenomenon.
The inspection grid should have a unique identification for each measurement location. For
compatibility with the CHECUP and CHECWORKS computer codes, if used, it is
recommended that letters be used to designate circumferential locations, and numbers used to
designate axial locations on grids. It is also recommended that the origin of the grid be on the
upstream side of the component.
For small-bore piping and tubing, there are no standardized inspection methods. The most
common approaches are:
Gridding or scanning the downstream piping and expanding to the component if substantial
wear is found.
Gridding the component and recording the readings.
Scanning the component and recording the minimum measured on the entire component or in
quadrants.
Using RT methods. These methods will be discussed in a Subsection 5.4.3.
5.4.2.1 Grid Coverage
Experience has shown that it is very difficult to predict where the maximum wear will occur in a
given component. (For the purpose of this section, a component refers to both fittings and
straight pipes.) To ensure that the maximum FAC wear can be detected, the UT grid should fully
cover the component being inspected. A full-coverage grid also provides a good baseline for
future inspections. As wear can spread over time, a partial grid, even if larger than the original
wear area, may be too small to ensure that the full extent of the wear can be detected in the
future.
It is also beneficial to inspect the area on both sides of each pipe-to-component weld. It is
desirable to start the grid line on both sides of the weld, as close as possible to the toe of the
weld, in order to locate potential thin areas adjacent to the weld. This will help detect the
presence of backing rings, or the use of counterbore to match the two inner surfaces. Having data
on the connected pipe can also be helpful in evaluating whether variation of wall thickness in the
component is FAC wear or fabrication variations. In many cases, the grid in the counterbore
region will have to be evaluated separately.
5-10
It is also suggested that when fittings are welded directly to fittings, the weld area on the
downstream fitting be inspected. This will provide the same benefits as discussed above.
The results of EPRI tests, as well as the evaluation of data from a large number of power plant
inspections, show that FAC can also extend into the piping downstream of a component.
Consequently, it is recommended that the inspection grid extend from two grid lines upstream of
the toe of the upstream weld to a minimum of two grid lines or six inches (15 cm), whichever is
greater, beyond the toe of the downstream weld. If there is a straight pipe immediately
downstream of the examined component and if the measured wall thickness in the pipe is
decreasing in the downstream direction, or if significant wear is present, the inspection grid
should be continued downstream until an increasing thickness trend is established. If expanded
inspections are performed on the downstream pipe, then the pipe should be separately evaluated
for acceptance.
Test results also show that in the case of expanders (or diffusers) and expanding elbows, FAC
can occur upstream of the component as well. It is recommended that for these components the
wall thickness in the upstream pipe be measured. The grid should be extended upstream 2 grid
lines or six inches (15 cm), whichever is greater. The grid should be expanded further upstream
if necessary.
Maximum wear in straight pipe downstream of components typically occurs within two
diameters of the connecting weld. Consideration should be given to extending the grid two
diameters downstream (or two diameters upstream for expanders and expanding elbows), at least
for the first two inspections. This may avoid extra inspection time during the outage to
investigate the first two grids and then having to inspect further downstream.
Valves, orifices, equipment nozzles, and other like components cannot be inspected completely
with UT techniques due to their shape and thickness. They need to be treated differently.
Experience has shown that FAC wear in these components can be gauged from wear that may be
present in piping located immediately downstream. It is therefore recommended that for these
components the inspection grid be placed on the downstream pipe for a distance of two
diameters downstream of the connecting weld, and, if possible, one or two grids in the
component itself. If significant wear is detected in the downstream pipe, the component should
also be examined. This approach for valves, orifices and equipment nozzles is only applicable if
the piping downstream is manufactured of material with equal or higher susceptibility (equal or
lower chromium content), and has not been repaired or replaced. A combination of UT, RT
and/or visual techniques are typically utilized to inspect valves, orifices and equipment nozzles.
5.4.2.2 Grid Size
To be compatible with the EPRI computer codes, if used, grid lines must be either perpendicular
or parallel to the flow. For elbows, the lines perpendicular to the flow (inspection bands) are
radial lines focusing on the center of curvature. This results in the same number of grid
intersection points on both the intrados and the extrados of an elbow. The suggested grid layout
is shown in Figure 5-3.
5-11
Figure 5-3
Grid Layout for an Elbow
It is important that the grid size (maximum distance along the component surface between grid
lines) be small enough to ensure that the thinned region can be identified. Experience and plant
data have shown that the grid size should be such that the maximum distance between grid lines
is no greater than D/12, where D is the nominal outside diameter. The grid size need not be
smaller than 1 inch (2.5 cm), and should not be larger than 6 inches (15 cm). The following table
illustrates the maximum grid sizes for standard pipe sizes. The user should select convenient grid
sizes equal to or smaller than those tabulated for the pipe sizes of interest.
The grid size below is sufficient to detect the presence of wear, but may not be small enough to
determine the extent and maximum depth of that wear. Therefore, where inspections reveal FAC
wall thinning, the grid size should be reduced to a size sufficient to map the depth and extent of
the thinned area. A grid size of one half the maximum size should be sufficient for mapping.
5-12
Table 5-1
Maximum Grid Sizes for Standard Pipe Sizes (1 inch = 2.54 cm)
Pipe Size (inch) Outside Diameter (inch) Maximum Grid Size (inch)
2 2.375 1.00
3 3.500 1.00
4 4.500 1.17
6 6.625 1.73
8 8.625 2.25
10 10.750 2.81
12 12.750 3.33
14 14.000 3.67
16 16.000 4.19
18 18.000 4.71
20 20.000 5.23
24 24.000 6.00
>24 ----- 6.00
Because of the importance of grid layout in the inspection process and in the interpretation of the
obtained data, it is important that the grid layouts used be well thought out and not be changed
arbitrarily. This will provide the best possible value from the data sets obtained.
5.4.3 Through-Insulation Inspections
As noted previously, two inspection techniques RT and PEC - allow through-insulation

assessment of FAC damage.(5,6,7) Although neither technique will provide the same level of
accuracy as UT measurements, this through-insulation capability allows organizations to obtain
data during plant operation and, importantly, better prepare for inspection effort during unit
maintenance outages. Additionally, RT provides a technique to get some level of wall loss
information in situations involving complex geometry where UT cannot be applied. Figure 5-4
illustrates both through-wall and tangential applications of RT. As can be seen in this figure,
sources for inaccuracies in wall thickness values arise from the corrections required to, for
example, account for the radiographic beam passing through two walls in the through-wall case
and account for the variable metal path in the tangential case. Spatial distortion occurs at the
edge of the film relative to the centerline and introduces inaccuracies in thickness measurements.
Tangential radiography is more successful in estimating wall thickness.
5-13
Figure 5-4
Radiographic Technique for FAC
Newer RT performed with reusable phosphor plates rather than traditional film offers the
advantages of higher sensitivity that requires lower radioactive source strength for equivalent
film image quality and of a direct transfer of the radiographic image to electronic media. This, in
turn, allows application of computer-based, image enhancement tools to improve data
interpretation.
Pulsed eddy current (PEC) technology has been used in recent years to perform through-
(6,7,9)
insulation inspections. The technique does not offer the same spatial resolution as provided
by UT measurements. This is illustrated in Figure 5-5 which compares wall thickness maps from
both PEC and UT tests done on feedwater piping. The PEC process averages over a larger
inspection spot size than in the case of UT. Accordingly, PEC does not provide a reliable
methodology to determine the maximum wall loss, and thickness results should not be used in
establishing re-inspection intervals without an increase in safety factor.
5-14
C-Scan Incotest-Results Hayden Sample C-Scan UT-Results Hayden Sample
15
15
14 14
13 13
12 12
11 11
10 10
Axial position
Axial position
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
G
C
A
O
M
E
G
C
A
O
M
E
I
Circumferential position
C ircumfe re ntial position
15.0-20.0 20.0-25.0 25.0-30.0 15.0-20.0 20.0-25.0 25.0-30.0
30.0-35.0 35.0-40.0 40.0-45.0 30.0-35.0 35.0-40.0 40.0-45.0
Figure 5-5
Comparison of PEC and UT Results for FAC Damage to Piping
In addition to piping applications, PEC has been applied to FAC damage assessment for
feedwater heater shells.(9) This application is attractive due to the large areas to be evaluated and
to the fact that RT cannot be easily applied as a through-insulation technique. Figure 5-6
summarizes the recommended inspection area for the two-phase FAC damage that has been
reported in feedwater heaters (and reviewed in Section 2). EPRI results in assessing this
technique show that it matches UT wear patterns if the area extent is large, that it provided
reliable detection in cases where wall loss exceeded 20% and circumferential extent was greater
than 10 inches (25.4 cm), that it was not reliable for FAC damage with relatively small area
extent. Figure 5-7 provides a comparison of PEC and UT results.
5-15
Figure 5-6
Recommended Inspection Coverage in Circumferential Direction for a Feedwater Heater
Shell
Pulsed Eddy Current Pulse Echo UT

Figure 5-7
Comparison of PEC and UT (pulse echo) Results for a Feedwater Heater Shell Left
Section
5-16
5.4.4 Measuring Trace Alloy Content
It has been previously presented in Section 2 that the presence of small amounts of chromium,
and to a lesser extent copper and molybdenum, will dramatically reduce the rate at which FAC
occurs. Currently, the technology exists to measure the trace alloy content of components. If the
alloy content were measured, these measurements could then be factored into the Predictive
Plant Model to improve the accuracy of predictions and to ensure that the inspection program is
directed at the fittings most likely to fail. These measurements are particularly useful in cases
where the measured wear is substantially less than the predicted wear. This will help in both
understanding the reason for the differences as well as improving the accuracy of a Predictive
Plant Model. Note that material libraries built into computer codes such as CHECWORKS and
CHECUP, normally use minimum specified values for the alloy content. If alloy
measurements are used, the analyst must confirm that the measurements are accurate enough to
ensure that the predictions remain conservative.
5.5 Evaluating Inspection Data
Once the inspection data has been acquired, the next task is to evaluate the data for accuracy and
to then assess the impact of any detected damage on remaining life of the component. Again, it
is emphasized that in situations where little or no damage is found, attention must then be given
to longterm, root cause control via cycle chemistry parameters.
5.5.1 Evaluation Process
The purpose of evaluating the inspection data is to determine the location, extent, and amount of
total wear for each inspected component. The evaluation process is complicated by several
factors, including the following:
Unknown initial wall thickness (if baseline data was not taken).
Variation of as-built thickness along the axis and around the circumference of the
component.
Inaccuracies in NDE measurements.
The possible presence of pipe to component misalignment, backing rings, or the use of
counterbore to match two surfaces.
Data recording errors or data transfer errors.
Obstructions that prevent complete gridding (e.g., a welded attachment).
The challenge is to minimize the effect of these problems by applying uniform evaluation
methods and utilizing engineering judgment.
5-17
The large amount of inspection data can present a substantial data management problem. To
manage the data, it is recommended that a scheme be utilized to organize and maintain the data
logger files. A database should be used to store past inspection data and contain provisions to
accommodate future inspection data. The database will provide an efficient means of organizing
and accessing the data.
The evaluation process consists of reviewing the inspection data for accuracy, determining the
total wear, and determining the wear rate for each inspected component. These processes are
described below.
5.5.2 Data Reduction
The inspection data should be carefully reviewed to identify any data that is judged to be in error.
Erroneous data points should preferably be re-inspected, or if necessary, eliminated to obtain
valid readings. High and low readings should be compared to adjacent readings to evaluate their
validity. One high or low reading in an area of consistent thickness may indicate an erroneous
reading. Finally, depending on the component type, the variation in thickness attributable to
manufacturing variations should be separated from the FAC wear. Reviewing data from the
attached upstream and downstream pipe can be helpful. Elbows, tees, reducers and expanders are
examples of components in which there is significant variation in thickness due to the
manufacturing process. The presence of backing rings and counterbore should be noted so that
these effects can be excluded.
Once the data set is acceptable, any wear region on the component should be identified. The
location of a potential wear region should be compared with the component orientation, flow
direction, and attached piping. The variation in thickness within this region should be compared
to the adjacent region to confirm the existence of wear. If data from previous inspections are
available, they should be compared with the current measurements, and wear trends/patterns
should be identified.
5.5.3 Determining Initial Thickness and Measured Wear
Wear evaluations fall into two categories. The first category includes those components for
which baseline (pre-service) thickness data are available. The second category includes those
components for which no baseline data exists. The method used for calculating the component
maximum wear (the maximum depth of wall thinning since the component was installed or
repaired) will be different for the second case as the initial thickness is unknown.
There are four methods commonly used for determining the wear of piping components from UT
inspection data3. The methods are:
Band Method
Area Method
3 Validity of the methods to determine wear and estimate the components initial thickness is based on grid sizes
and configurations consistent with that recommended in Subsection 5.4.
5-18
Moving Blanket Method

Point to Point Method
Three of the methods (band, area and blanket) also estimate the components initial thickness and
can be used to evaluate components with single outage inspection data. All the methods are
predicated on the theory that the wear caused by FAC is typically found in a localized area or
region. Also, application of these approaches is invoked for the case where on-going FAC
damage is anticipated because root cause control actions (chemistry or material upgrade)
cannot/is not implemented. The methods are described below:
Band Method
The Band Method is predicated on the assumption that wear caused by FAC is localized. As
such, the thickness variations observed around circumferential bands is an indication of the wear
experienced by the component. By successively evaluating these circumferential bands, the
component wear is determined by the maximum variation observed from all such bands.
The band method divides a component into circumferential bands of one grid width each. Each
band is in a plane perpendicular to the direction of the flow. Figure 5-8 shows a cross sectional
view of a circumferential band on a component with a localized wear region.
t max
t min
Figure 5-8
Example of Band Method
The initial thickness of each band is assumed to be the larger of the nominal thickness or the
maximum thickness found in the band (tmax). The band wear is the initial thickness minus the
minimum thickness found in the band (tmin).
For each band: tinit = larger of tnom or tmax
Wear = tinit - tmin
The component maximum wear is the largest of the individual band wear values. The component
initial thickness is then the initial thickness from the band of maximum wear. The use of the
nominal wall thickness in the above calculations addresses the possibility that an entire band may
have thinned uniformly, which may have caused most or all of the thickness to be under the
nominal wall thickness.
5-19
The band method is based on the assumption of a uniform initial thickness of the band (e.g., no
manufacturing variation). Any such manufacturing variation is reflected in the calculated wear.
An appropriate method should thus be used to determine the measured wear of components
suspected to have manufacturing variations (e.g., elbows). Further information is contained in the
(2)
CHECUP user guide.
Area Method
The Area Method is an expansion of the Band method in which a local rectangular region,
identified as the wear region, is evaluated for wear. It is based on the assumption that the entire
wear area, and a thickness representative of the initial thickness, is encompassed within the
rectangular region. More than one area can be defined for a given component. The initial
thickness of each area is assumed to be the larger of the nominal thickness or the maximum
thickness found in the area. The area wear is the initial thickness minus the minimum thickness
found in the area. An example of the Area Method is shown in Figure 5-9.
A, 1 G, 1
B, 2 E, 2
B, 5 E, 5
A, 6 G, 6
Figure 5-9
Example of Area Method
For each area: tinit = larger of tnom or tmax
Wear = tinit - tmin
The component maximum wear is the largest of the individual area wear values. The component
initial thickness is then the initial thickness from the area of maximum wear. The use of nominal
wall thickness in the above calculations addresses the possibility that an entire area may have
thinned uniformly, which may have caused most or all of the thickness to be under the nominal
wall thickness.
Moving Blanket Method
The Moving Blanket Method is a refinement of the Area Method. It automates the process of
identifying the region of maximum wear and attempts to minimize the effect of measurement
errors. The Moving Blanket Method was developed by reviewing extensive amounts of
5-20
component data to identify a method that would provide realistic, yet somewhat conservative
estimates of initial thickness and wear. The method that was developed consists of placing a
predetermined wear area or blanket of certain dimensions over the grid data. See Figure 5-10.
The data that is within each blanket is evaluated to estimate both the initial thickness and the
wear. The blanket is then moved to another location on the component and the process is
repeated. The process continues until all possible locations on the component have been covered.
Initial Blanket Location
A, 1 G, 1 Maximum Wear Blanket Location
A, 1 G, 1
B, 2 D, 2
B, 2 D, 2
Primary
Move
B, 5 D, 5
A, 6 G, 6 B, 4 D, 4
Secondary Move A, 6 G, 6
Figure 5-10
Example of Moving Blanket Method
Point-to-Point Method
The Point-to-Point Method can be used when data taken at the same grid locations exists from
two or more outages (or baseline data plus data from one or more outages). In such a case, it is
possible to obtain a difference in thickness readings at each of the grid locations. In summary,
the wear at each grid location is the thickness taken at the earlier inspection minus the thickness
taken at the later inspection. The largest of the grid wear values is the component maximum wear
between the two outages. The Point-to-Point Method does not estimate the initial component
thickness.
5.6 Identifying and Confirming the Cause of Damage
Wherever significant damage (or a leak or failure) has been found, it is highly recommended to
look at the surface morphology and to perform a metallographic analysis to confirm the
mechanism is FAC. Section 2 provides an extensive review of actual FAC damage. It is,
however, most important to note that the plant areas susceptible to FAC can also be damaged by
other mechanisms, which include cavitation and droplet impingement (sometimes called liquid
impact erosion).
Cavitation in piping and valve components occurs when water near the saturation point
experiences a large pressure drop such as at a throttled control valve or orifice. The pressure
drops below saturation, and bubbles are formed. Further downstream, when the pressure
recovers, the bubbles collapse, causing large pressure spikes on nearby surfaces. The result can
be significant wall loss of the material surfaces. Damage tends to look and feel quite sharp.
5-21
Droplet impingement occurs in high velocity two-phase conditions when water droplets
entrained in the steam strike and damage piping and equipment surfaces. As with cavitation,
damage tends to look and feel quite sharp. It is important to identify the mechanism and to
determine what caused the damage so that appropriate measures can be taken to find the extent
of the damage and to control it. These guidelines do not pertain to mechanisms other than FAC.
5.7 Evaluating Worn Components
Safe operation of piping and other components is predicated on the wall thickness being
sufficient to contain the pressure stresses and prevent leak or rupture. The material in this
subsection reviews the calculation basis for continued service.
5.7.1 Acceptable Wall Thickness
Once significant damage has been found, and FAC has been determined to be the cause, then it
should be evaluated to determine its acceptability for continued service. A component can be
considered suitable for continued service if the predicted wall thickness, tp, at the time of the
next inspection is greater than or equal to the minimum acceptable wall thickness, taccpt,
tp taccpt
where,
tp = Predicted remaining wall thickness at a given location on

the component
taccpt = Minimum acceptable wall thickness at location of tp
Note that tp can be rewritten in terms of the current thickness, tc, as:
tp = tc - predicted wear
or
tp = tc - (R x T x SF)
where,
tc = Current wall thickness at location of tp

R = FAC wear rate at location of tp
T = Time until next inspection
SF = Safety Factor
5-22
Although the wear rate and the amount of wear vary throughout a component, calculation of
location-by-location values is beyond the ability of current available computer software.
Currently, it is recommended that the component maximum wear rate be assumed to occur
throughout the component, giving a predicted future thickness profile as shown in Figure 5-11.
Note that this approach is conservative, as the amount of wear is overstated at all locations other
than the point of maximum wear. See Subsection 5.7.2 for a method to determine the component
maximum wear rate.
Exterior Surface
Predicted
Current Thickness
Thickness Profile
Profile
Predicted Wear
Current Interior Surface
Figure 5-11
Predicted Thickness Profile
For susceptible components that have not been inspected, the predicted thickness should be used
to calculate the lifetime of the component. The component nominal wall thickness should be
utilized as the initial thickness unless another value can be justified.
A reasonable safety factor should be applied to the predicted wear rates to account for
inaccuracies in the FAC wear rate calculations. This can also provide a mechanism by which the
analyst may apply engineering judgment in setting the interval for re-inspection. As the plant
program matures and several outages of good inspection data are collected, the safety factor can
be changed based on the use of actual inspection data.
The minimum acceptable wall thickness for each component should be calculated. Component
(10)
acceptance criteria are typically based on the ANSI B31.1 construction code of record for the
plant or the local international code. It is recommended that the calculation of taccpt be
performed by an engineer with experience in piping stress analysis.
5.7.2 Maximum Wear Rate
The Predictive Plant Model should be used to predict the future maximum wear rate for every
component analyzed, whether inspected or not. For those components that have been inspected,
two methods have been used to determine the wear rate directly from the inspection data.
5-23
With the first method, the component maximum wear is divided by the period of service to
obtain the average wear rate over the component lifetime. This past rate is then assumed to
continue into the future. However, this method may cause several potential inaccuracies:
1. This method assumes that operating conditions that affect FAC wear rate (e.g., feedwater
chemistry, plant power level) have not changed since plant startup or are well documented. If
changes did occur or these conditions are not well documented and assumptions must be
made, the current wear rate could be considerably different than the average wear rate.
2. The method cannot accommodate potential future changes in operating conditions.
Figure 5-12 shows the potential for error when using an average wear rate based on inspection
data and changing operating conditions for determining component lifetimes.
Chemistry Period 1 Chemistry Prediction

Component Thickness
Period 2
t init Initial Wear Rate
Current
Wear
Rate
Average
Wear
Rate
t accpt
Time of Inspection
Plant Operating Time
Figure 5-12
Potential for Error When Using Average Wear Rate Based on Inspection Data
A second method can be utilized if data from more than one inspection is available. The
measured thickness at the point of maximum wear from the current outage is subtracted from the
value measured at the previous outage. This difference is then divided by the time interval to
obtain the average wear rate. This method is known as the point-to-point method. It has the
advantage of being mechanical; the maximum wear is simply the maximum difference between
two sets of readings at the same location. Note that the user does not have to estimate initial
thickness of the component in order to calculate the measured wear. The difficulties in using the
point-to-point method occur in cases where the wear between the outages is small. Two large
numbers (wall thickness) are subtracted to obtain a small number (wear since previous outage)
and then divided by another relatively small number (interval between outages) to determine the
wear rate. UT measurement inaccuracies could cause significant calculation error with this
method. This is illustrated in Figure 5-13. However, in most cases where inspection data from
5-24
several inspection outages is available, the point-to-point method will provide more accurate
determinations of wear than other methods.
Previous Current Future

Component Thickness
Outage Outage Outage
Range of UT UT Reading
Inaccuracy Assumed
Wear Potential
Rate Range of
Actual
Wear Rate
Plant Operating Time

Figure 5-13
Potential Error Of Using Wear Rate Based On Inspection Data From Two Inspections
5.7.3 Remaining Service Life
It is recommended to determine the remaining service life of each component where FAC is
active or has been active,
where,
Tlife = remaining service life
cu rrent thickness m inim u m accep table thickness

Tlife =
cu rrent w ear rate safety factor
t c t accpt
Tlife =
R SF
5-25
For those components that have been inspected, it is recommended that actual measured values
be used for tc. For components not inspected, tc can be predicted utilizing predicted wear rates,
tc = tinit - predicted wear
= tinit - (T x R x SF)
where,
T = component service time to date

R = average wear rate over time T
SF = safety factor
If the predicted remaining service life is shorter than the amount of time until the next inspection,
there are three options for disposition of the component:
1. Shorten the inspection interval.
2. Perform a detailed stress analysis to obtain a more accurate value of the acceptable thickness.
3. Repair or replace the component.
5.8 Outage Documentation
The results of the major decisions and results of the outage inspections should be documented,
and appropriate records should be maintained. It is recommended that a report be prepared for
each inspection outage. This report should identify the components inspected and justify the
basis for their selection, (i.e., predictive ranking, industry experience, engineering judgment), the
results of those inspections, and an evaluation and disposition of worn components. The plant
database of inspection and replacement history should be updated after every outage.
5.9 Perform Necessary Repairs and Replacements
Where unacceptable damage has been found (as determined by the structural evaluations of
Subsection 5.7.1), it is necessary to repair or replace the affected components. One mitigating
approach that is sometimes used is to replace only those fittings that have experienced significant
wear. This approach is satisfactory if the wear is very localized. This is the case in which the
wear is concentrated downstream of a flow control valve or an orifice. In most cases, though, the
wear is widespread throughout a susceptible line or system. Unless changes to cycle chemistry
can be implemented to control FAC damage, it is only a matter of time until upstream or
downstream fittings will also need to be replaced. This fitting-by-fitting replacement approach is
less expensive in the short term, but is generally not cost effective over the long term. Plants
using this selected replacement technique have also experienced unexpected failures in
components scheduled for future replacement. It is recommended that when making repairs,
strong consideration be given to replacing the entire line or spool piece with a resistant material
5-26
(Cr content > 1.25%). Again, unless changes to cycle chemistry can be implemented to control
FAC damage, replacement/repair with carbon steel will result in repeat FAC damage.
5.9.1 Repairing and Replacing Components
The following items should be considered in making replacement decisions:

The cost and availability of replacement fittings.
The need for skills and procedures to weld alloy steels and clad material to carbon steel, or
apply weld overlays or use the temper bead technique.
The pre-and post-weld heat treatments required for welding chrome-molybdenum fittings.
This heat treatment may affect the outage schedule.
The piping stress analysis required if a large portion of a carbon steel line is replaced with
stainless steel.
The feasibility of replacing the entire system with a more wear-resistant material.
If repair is decided upon, the weld buildup technique is commonly used for the temporary repair
of piping. Interior weld buildup is generally preferred to exterior buildup for the following
reasons:
Interior weld repair results in a smoother internal surface.
By using interior weld repair, the resulting, smoother internal surface reduces the difficulty
of making future UT inspections.
An exterior weld buildup tends to result in a more complex state of stress.
Temporary clamping devices or furmanite boxes are often used to make temporary repairs to low
pressure piping. However, permanent repairs should be made at the first opportunity in the event
that the damage is growing and may cause the component to lose structural integrity (i. e.,
completely rupture).
If repair or replacement of a component is necessary, it is recommended that the plant owner

develop a strategy so that the wear process does not continue. This essentially means not
repairing/replacing with carbon steel material. However, there are cases in which use of like-for-
like (i.e., non-FAC resistant) material is appropriate. These cases include:
The plant has optimized the feedwater chemistry (Sections 2 and 6) or the line will
experience less damaging operating conditions (e.g., a higher steam quality) such that the
replacement is projected to last the remaining life of the plant.
Procurement of a resistant material would delay plant restart. In this case, consideration
should be given to upgrading the replacement with a resistant material at the next outage.
5-27
The remaining life of the plant is such that a like-for-like replacement will perform
satisfactorily.
Life cycle costs and risk considerations associated with like-for-like replacement, including
associated inspection costs, do not support change to FAC resistant material.
5.9.2 Use of FAC Resistant Materials
It has been widely demonstrated that materials containing chromium are resistant to FAC
damage. Lesser improvements come from molybdenum and copper. Replacing carbon steel
piping with chrome-molybdenum alloy (SA335, Grade P11 or P22) (1.25 or 2.25% Cr alloys) or
stainless steel (normally a 304 alloy) should alleviate FAC damage for the life of the plant. The
benefit can also be achieved by coating the piping surface with a high-alloy layer (flame
spraying or weld overlay) or using a clad pipe with a high-chromium or stainless steel inner layer
surrounded by a carbon steel outer layer. In all cases replacement should be with a minimum of a
1.25% Cr alloy. Recent EPRI work has reviewed the use of weld overlay for repair of FAC
damage to deaerators(11). This review notes the need for further weld procedure development to
allow use of chromium levels greater than 1.25% without performing post weld heat treatment.
EPRI work is ongoing.
In the specific case of two-phase FAC damage to both conventional fossil plant components and
to HRSG components, use of FAC resistant materials will likely provide the most cost-effective,
longterm control of FAC damage since cycle chemistry control options are limited as discussed
in Sections 2 and 6.
Table 5-2 presents the degree of improvement associated with common piping alloys, as
predicted by CHECUP, which is based on the data of Ducreux(12). This data is generally
considered the definitive work in the area of the influence of material composition on FAC wear
rate. It is clear from the values shown in the table that FAC can be effectively eliminated through
material improvement.
Table 5-2
Performance of Common FAC-Resistant Alloys
Nominal Composition Ratecarbon/Ratealloy

(Chrome & Moly only) _________________
Material
P11 1.25% Cr, 0.50% Mo 34

P22 2.25% Cr, 1.00% Mo 65
304 18% Cr >250
Material changes can be used to replace an entire system or to repair an especially troublesome
area. However, material replacement may not reduce the wear rate if the damage is caused by a
mechanism other than FAC. This is the case, for instance, if the damage is caused by cavitation
or liquid impingement.
5-28
5.9.3 System Design Changes
When repairing a section or line of piping damaged by FAC, some consideration can also be
given to design changes, particularly when a like-for-like replacement is made. However, design
changes generally result in only small reductions to the rate of FAC damage. For example,
reducing the flow velocity by changing the diameter of a piping system from 12 to 14 inches (30-
35 cm) will only reduce the FAC rate by about 20%. One instance, however, where design
change can be effective occurs in increasing the pipe diameter to reduce the velocity in control
valve stations. Valve stations are typically designed to accommodate the flow capacity of the
control valves. This typically results in a reduced diameter of about 60% of the line size and a
consequent increase in the fluid velocity. This locally increased velocity has often caused
damage downstream of the valve. Redesigning the valve station to reduce the local velocity and
turbulence can greatly reduce the rate of FAC damage.
5.10 References
1. CHECWORKS Computer Program Users Guide, TR-103496, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
August 1994.
2. CHECWORKS Fossil Plant Application - CHECUP Code, Version 1.0 User Guide,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1998. TR-103198-P5.
3. CHECUPweb Version 1.0 a web application on the EPRI Solutions production server, EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1008127
4. NDE of Ferritic Piping for Erosion/Corrosion, NP-5410, Electric Power Research Institute,
September 1987.
5. FAC Wear Rate Assessment Through Insulation, EPRI, EPRI NDE Center, Charlotte, NC:
2000. 1000114.
6. On-Line Flow-Accelerated Corrosion Assessment of Large Diameter Piping Through

Insulation with Radiographic Techniques, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA and Florida Power & Light,
Juno Beach, FL: 2004. 1009594.
7. Assessment of the Pulsed Eddy Current Technique: Detecting Flow-Accelerated Corrosion in

Feedwater Piping, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1997. TR-109146.
8. Interim Guidelines for the Nondestructive Examination of Heat Recovery Steam Generators,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1004506.
9. In-service Feedwater Heater Condition Assessment Using the Pulsed Eddy Current NDE
Technology, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001. 1006372.
5-29
10. American National Standard Code for Pressure Piping, Power Piping, ANSI B31.1.
11. Repair of Deaerators, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004, 1008069.
12. J. Ducreux, Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Chemical

Composition of Steels on Their Erosion-Corrosion Resistance, presented at the Specialists
Meeting on the Corrosion-Erosion of Steels in High-Temperature Water and Wet Steam, Les
Renardieres, France, May 1982.
5-30
6
OPTIMIZE FEEDWATER CHEMISTRY IN
CONVENTIONAL FOSSIL AND HRSG PLANTS
For conventional fossil plants as indicated in Section 3 (Figure 3-1), it is suggested that a utility
address both the Inspection Based Activities and optimize the feedwater chemistry in a parallel
path set of activities in developing an overall approach to FAC. The importance of feedwater
chemistry in the mechanism of FAC, and its interface with the different materials (all-ferrous or
mixed-metallurgy) under reducing and oxidizing conditions was discussed in Section 2.
Changes in feedwater treatment can significantly reduce the rate of single-phase FAC, and in
some cases (such as with OT in all-ferrous systems) can almost eliminate it.
Similarly in HRSGs, optimizing the cycle chemistry can significantly assist in controlling FAC.
As discussed in Sections 2 and 3, the cycle chemistry can be optimized in: a) the feedwater to
control single-phase FAC (Step 9 on Figure 3-2), and b) the evaporator to control both single-
and two-phase FAC (Step 10 in Figure 3-2).
Chemistry changes are an attractive solution for FAC as they affect the damage mechanisms
globally. It is also recognized that the cycle chemistry is very important to the overall
availability of other parts of the fossil and HRSG plants, as the corrosion products generated
flow around the cycle and deposit in the higher heat transfer areas. These locations can act as the
initiating centers for other damage mechanisms.
EPRI has a series of guidelines for fossil plant cycle chemistry(1,2,3) and for HRSGs.(4) The
feedwater guideline limits are shown in Table 2-2. This Section addresses the selection and
optimization of feedwater treatment and is an extracted compilation from the latest guideline
documents with particular emphasis for FAC control and minimization. Optimization of the
evaporator chemistry for HRSGs is discussed in Step 10 of the road map for controlling FAC in
HRSGs (Section 3.2).
6.1 Optimization of All-Ferrous Feedwater Chemistry in Conventional and

HRSG Units
Figure 6-1 shows a road map for optimizing the feedwater treatment in all-ferrous systems. The
primary purposes of this important activity are to minimize corrosion product transport,
eliminate any possibility for single-phase FAC, and thus to reduce the accumulation of corrosion
product deposition on the boiler waterwalls. The methodology described here is equally
applicable for both drum and once-through conventional fossil units and for HRSG units with
all-ferrous feedwater systems.
6-1
Optimize Feedwater Chemistry in conventional Fossil and HRSG Plants
Step 1 - Review Normal or Current Feedwater Treatment
This step involves a review of the current feedwater treatment, which is probably AVT(R) with a
reducing agent. If there are no current problems then continue to use the current treatment. Such
a review would indicate that the operating experience has been good, that minimal chemical
control problems have been experienced, that no BTF or HTF in the waterwalls or evaporators
relating to waterside problems have occurred in the last five years, that no turbine deposition or
blade failure problems have occurred, and that the feedwater is operating in the optimum fashion
with minimum levels of feedwater corrosion products (less than 2 ppb at the economizer inlet).
In such cases of good experience, no changes need to be made. However, it is suggested that the
road map is reviewed as there may be considerable economic savings to be gained by converting
to AVT(O) or OT, and it should be remembered that single-phase FAC is always possible with
reducing feedwater chemistry (AVT(R)) (Section 2). If the review indicates problems, then some
baseline monitoring is required (Step 2).
Step 2 - Monitoring Baseline on Current Feedwater Treatment
This step involves a complete base-line monitoring to quantify the current chemical parameters
and, in Step 3, to determine whether continued use of a reducing agent and AVT(R) or a change
to AVT(O) should be contemplated.
This program would utilize the installed chemistry monitoring system, which involves the core
(14)
level of instrumentation.
The monitoring program should pay particular attention to the adequacy of the makeup and
chemical feed systems, condenser tightness, air in-leakage, and corrosion product transport.
6-2
Figure 6-1
Road Map for Optimizing Feedwater Treatment for All-Ferrous Feedwater Systems.
6-3
This monitoring involves taking a thumb-print of the unit under typical operating conditions
to identify under controlled conditions exactly how the unit chemistry is behaving. It may
involve a review of the operating chemistry logs, but this often is not satisfactory and it is
preferable to undertake a monitoring campaign. Before this campaign is initiated, it is important
to review the utilitys chemistry monitoring capability and reliability. This should include
Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) of existing and normally utilized analytical
chemistry monitoring and analysis methodology and equipment.
The monitoring campaign should include:

Varying Operating Conditionsbase load, startup and shutdown
Steam Chemistrycation conductivity, sodium, chloride, silica and sulfate
Feedwater Chemistrycation conductivity, chloride, corrosion products (Fe, Cu), oxygen
and pH.
Operation of Condensate Polishers (if included)
If this step indicates a low level of feedwater corrosion product transport (such as Fe <2 ppb) and
acceptable feedwater purity from a dissolved solids standpoint with the control chemistry
meeting the guideline values provided in the EPRI Guidelines,(14) then an organization might
consider to continue with the current AVT(R) feedwater chemistry. Further confirmation, for
conventional fossil plants, of optimum feedwater chemistry will be that waterwall deposition
rates have historically been much less than 1 mg/cm2/1000 hours (about 1 g/ft2/1000 hours), that
the interval between chemical cleans has historically been longer than every 10 years, and that
there has been no indication of FAC in the feedwater, feedwater steamside, deaerator, or
feedwater heater drain lines. For HRSG plants, confirmation would be low levels (< 5 ppb) of
iron around the cycle.
Step 3 - Evaluate Reducing Agent Requirements
This step is a subset of Step 2 and should involve a series of tests to minimize the generation and
transport of feedwater corrosion products.
Many utilities with all-ferrous systems have found that, with proper air in-leakage control
(dissolved oxygen at the CPD of less than 10 ppb), the reducing agent (such as hydrazine) can be
eliminated without jeopardizing chemistry control on the unit and move to AVT(O). Thus in
Step 3, a series of tests could be performed to evaluate the need for a reducing agent and, if
needed, to determine the proper reducing agent level. The tests should utilize the monitoring
system instrumentation (used in Step 2) while reducing or eliminating the reducing agent dosage.
Particular note should be made of dissolved oxygen levels and the level of corrosion products
generated during each test. Table 2-2 should be referenced for typical parameter ranges.
Particular attention should be paid to the fact that there can be a long time between changes in
the feedwater chemistry and corrosion product transport, so careful planning is needed for
accurate extended tests.
6-4
Step 4 - Monitoring with New Feedwater Treatment
Step 4 involves a period of normal operation with the new feedwater treatment, which
occasionally requires repetition of monitoring in Step 2 to confirm that running with reduced or
zero reducing agent provides the optimum feedwater treatment. This might involve a reduced
monitoring effort which just looks at feedwater oxygen and corrosion products at the economizer
inlet, in parallel with the cycle core parameters(14), which should be normally continuously
recorded and alarmed.
In units with all-ferrous feedwater systems, but with copper based condenser tubing, there is a
possibility of copper corrosion particularly in the air removal section of the condenser. If
increased copper transport is measured at the CPD, then considerations should be given to a
reduction in cycle pH from 9.29.6 to 9.09.3 as needed to reduce copper levels to those present
during baseline monitoring. Of course such an increase in copper dissolution will not be a result
of the AVT(R) to AVT (O) change, but the pH reduction was probably needed when operating in
the AVT(R) mode.
Steps 5 and 6 - Consider Converting to OT
Once the baseline monitoring (Step 2) and a period of normal operation has been undertaken
then the question can be raised about whether the unit could run on oxygenated treatment (Step
5). For conventional fossil plants, the reader is referenced to Sections 8 and 2.7 of the OT
Guidelines(3) for guidance on OT conversion and for frequently asked questions on OT which
provides step-by-step guidance on whether a unit is suitable for OT and how to convert units to
OT (Step 6) in a sequential fashion.
It should be noted that conversion to OT will take a number of weeks (more for drum units) and
must include passivation of the heater drains and optimizing of vent operation on the heaters and
deaerators.
Step 7 - Continue to Optimize the Feedwater Treatment
This step continues the efforts described in Steps 3 and 4.
Step 8 - Operation and Continuing Monitoring
When Step 7 results are satisfactory, indicating trouble-free water chemistry and operation, then
normal operational monitoring resumes. However, there should be periodic reviews of water
chemistry and equipment scale and corrosion problems, and chemical transport studies should be
performed every two to three years to ensure that equipment aging and other changes do not
result in problems. The water chemistry and operating manuals should be updated to reflect the
changes resulting from the optimization.
The feedwater treatment used on each unit, whether this is AVT(R), AVT(O) or OT, should be
continually checked to ensure it is always the optimum treatment.
6-5
6.2 Optimization of Feedwater Treatment for Conventional Fossil Plants

with Mixed-Metallurgy Systems
Figure 6-2 shows a road map for optimizing the feedwater treatment in conventional fossil plants
with mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems, and for ensuring that FAC will be minimized on the
carbon steel components. For mixed-metallurgy systems, the optimum pH control (9.0-9.3)
(Table 2-2)(1,2) is a compromise of the optimum corrosion protection for each metal. The brief
outline of the steps below are from an FAC perspective, but it is important that the reader
references the EPRI Guidelines(1,2) to get the full unit perspective for mixed-metallurgy units.
Step 1 - Review of Water Chemistry, Operation, and Experience
This step involves a review of the past and current feedwater treatments to assess whether FAC
is, or maybe will be a future, problem and also to determine if the feedwater treatment can be
optimized to minimize the level of feedwater corrosion products. If there have been no problems
in the unit, no evidence of any FAC damage or failure (Tables 1-2 and 1-3), and the level of
feedwater corrosion products at the economizer inlet are in agreement with the EPRI guideline
limits for mixed-metallurgy units (Table 2-2), then continue the current treatment. However, it is
suggested that the road map is reviewed as there may be considerable economic savings to be
gained. Also in mixed-metallurgy systems both the iron and copper corrosion products have to
be optimized as the latter contributes seriously to copper fouling of the HP turbine.(5)
6-6
Step 1
No current
Review design and problems
materials experience.
Review current
Continue use of
treatment, sampling
current treatment
and monitoring.
No problems, BUT
possible economic Step 2 Low level of
savings corrosion products
Baseline
monitoring
Implementation
Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Water chemistry Design and
optimization (pH, Operation
materials changes
ammonia/amine,
reducing agent)
Step 6 Monitoring to
compare with
baseline
Step 9 Step 7 Step 8
Normal operation Continual check of

Long-term plans chemistry
and monitoring
Figure 6-2
Road Map for Optimizing Feedwater Treatment for Mixed Metal Systems (Cu/Fe) to
Minimize Feedwater Corrosion Products (Fe and Cu), and FAC of the Carbon Steel
Components
Step 2 - Baseline Monitoring
Baseline monitoring is a step which determines cycle chemical characteristics such as oxygen
control, and transport of corrosion products. The monitoring involves taking a thumb-print of
the unit under typical operating conditions to identify under controlled conditions exactly how
the unit chemistry is behaving, and whether the feedwater chemistry is contributing to FAC of
the carbon steel components.
The monitoring campaign should include:

Varying Operating Conditions - base load, startup, shutdown, etc.
Steam Chemistry - cation conductivity, sodium, chloride, silica and sulfate
6-7
Feedwater Chemistry - cation conductivity, chloride, corrosion products (Fe, Cu),

oxygen, pH, oxidizing-reducing potential (ORP)
Drain lines - oxygen, ORP, and corrosion products
Operation of Condensate Polishers
During the tests for optimum pH and ammonia concentrations for mixed-metallurgy systems, it
is extremely important that both iron and copper feedwater corrosion are monitored.
If this step indicates a low level of feedwater corrosion products (such as Fe < 5 ppb and Cu < 2
ppb), and acceptable feedwater purity meeting the guideline limits (Table 2-2), then it is
suggested to continue with the current chemistry as future single-phase FAC damage is not likely
to be a serious problem. This does not preclude FAC having taken place with previous
feedwater treatments.
Step 3 - Water Chemistry Optimization
If Step 2 has identified a problem with corrosion and/or FAC, then a careful series of feedwater
optimization changes may improve the situation. Feedwater chemistry optimization usually
consists of reducing air in-leakage, minimization of ammonia concentration and determining the
optimum reducing agent dosage. All efforts must be directed along two paths: to minimize
copper corrosion, and control corrosion and FAC of the carbon steel components. In fossil
plants, there is little room for application of alternate reducing agents and volatile amines
because of the problems with their thermal decomposition and generation of organic acids and
CO2. Thus in most units with copper alloys in the feedwater system, hydrazine is the only
reducing agent recommended.
In this step, a series of tests should be performed to determine the proper reducing agent levels.
The tests will utilize the monitoring parameters in Step 2, with particular emphasis on dissolved
oxygen, ORP, and feedwater corrosion products. ORP (measured at the deaerator inlet) is
particularly important with mixed-metallurgy units as a reducing environment is required for the
(5)
copper containing alloys .
Step 4 - Design and Material Changes
See Section 5.
Step 5 - Operation
As indicated in Section 2, once design deficiencies, improper materials or operating features are
identified as the root causes of any FAC problems, these deficiencies need to be corrected. A
follow-up chemistry monitoring campaign will need to be conducted (Step 6) to ensure low
feedwater corrosion products and a low probability of FAC.
6-8
Step 6 - Monitoring to Compare with Baseline Data
This step is aimed at verifying the effectiveness of the implemented solutions to water chemistry,
corrosion and FAC problems.
Step 7 - Normal Operation and Monitoring
When Step 6 results are satisfactory, indicating long-time, trouble-free water chemistry and
operation, normal operational monitoring resumes. The major criterion of an optimized
feedwater treatment with minimum FAC is that the core parameters are within the normal
guideline limits (Table 2-2).
Step 8 - Continual Check of Chemistry
The continual check on the optimized treatment (Step 8) and the core parameters will determine
whether fine tuning is necessary (Repeat of Steps 3 and 6).
Step 9 - Longterm Plans
Based on the effectiveness of the solutions of water chemistry and corrosion problems
implemented in a specific unit and on the equipment life predictions (i.e., feedwater heater and
condenser tube deterioration) longterm plans can be formulated. This can include planning for
ultimate replacement of copper alloys, retrofit of condensate polishers, nitrogen sparging and
blanketing of the storage tanks used to fill the system during startup, etc.
Industry experience shows that the maximum reduction of corrosion product transport in fossil
power plant cycles can only be obtained by eliminating chemical control compromises caused by
the use of mixed metal feedwater systems. Experience has also shown that the installation of a
full-flow condensate polishing system with a startup cleanup system provides optimized
corrosion product transport control.
6-9
6.3 References
1. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: All-Volatile Treatment, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
November 2002. 1004187.
3. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Oxygenated Treatment, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
2005. 1004925.
Alto, CA. 1010438.
5. Guidelines for Copper in Fossil Plants, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: November 2000. 1000457.
6-10
7
PERFORM LONGTERM MONITORING AND
INSPECTIONS
It is most important that all plants conduct longterm monitoring and inspections of lines
susceptible to FAC, and continually check that the feedwater chemistry meets the guideline
limits of Table 2-2. This will provide a higher degree of assurance as to continued plant safety
and operational integrity than will one time inspections. The recommended frequency and extent
of future inspections will depend on the extent of damage found in the initial inspections, along
with plant actions to reduce susceptibility such as optimizing the feedwater chemistry in
conventional and HRSG plants, as well as the evaporator chemistry in HRSG plants.
Follow-on inspections on an annual basis are suggested as follows:

On all susceptible lines of plants that have not optimized their feedwater chemistry,
On all lines that have very little structural margins, and
On all lines that are found to have moderate to aggressive operating conditions.
Longterm monitoring (i. e., fewer inspections and inspections more widely spaced in time) can
be performed in the following case:
On lines of plants that have optimized their feedwater chemistry according to the procedures
in Section 6, and were found to have reasonable amounts of structural margins.
In case of doubt, it is recommended that follow-on inspections be performed until it is clearly

established that the line can be put into a longterm monitoring program.
7.1 Follow-On Inspections
Follow-on inspections should be conducted for each line of plants that have not optimized their
chemistry, were found to have little structural margin, or have aggressive operating conditions.
The purpose of the inspections are to:
1. Confirm the results of the first inspection.
2. Obtain data for trending wear for use in predicting remaining service life. This is done by
inspecting some of the previously inspected, highly-ranked components.
3. Consider inspecting those components with a short relative remaining service life to confirm
that all components are suitable for continued service.
7-1
Perform Longterm Monitoring and Inspections
The timing of the follow-on inspections should be conservatively selected considering results
from the previous inspections, predictions of the Predictive Plant Model, structural margins,
presence of any known aggravating conditions (e.g., leaking, flashing, or cycling valves),
potential consequences of failure, and plant and industry experience. For example, lines with
high wear rates or low structural margins should be reinspected at the next outage.
It is recommended that the following components be included in a second inspection for each
Analysis Line (definition of Analysis Line was provided in Section 5):
1. A minimum of three components from the initial inspection having the most FAC wear. This
will help confirm predictions made by the Predictive Plant Model and verify the inspection
and data acquisition systems used.
2. Consider inspecting a representative sample of components for which the updated Predictive
Plant Model shows a remaining service life of less than the amount of time until the next
scheduled inspection (if the Predictive Plant Model offers this feature). This situation can
occur in both previously inspected components as well as non-inspected components. See
Section 5 for calculations of predicted remaining service life.
The sample should represent factors such as component type, location, upstream influences,
train where located, size, operating conditions, etc. For example, results of an inspection of
one elbow closely located on the same train with two other elbows (e.g., same predicted wear
rate and remaining service life) could serve to represent all three elbows. However, three
otherwise identical elbows located on different trains should not be qualified by one
inspection.
3. Consideration should also be given to inspecting problem areas that have been experienced at
other power plants since the initial inspection.
Inspections following the second inspection should be scheduled as necessary to monitor plant
susceptibility and to inspect wearing components prior to the end of their predicted service life.
For each Analysis Line, the interval until the next inspection outage should be based on the
results of the prior inspection and any changes in plant design, operating conditions, and water
chemistry since then. Industry experience with problem areas in other plants should also be
considered.
It is recommended that the next inspection for each component be scheduled for no later than the
normally scheduled outage preceding the end of the predicted FAC service life of the component
plus an appropriate safety factor. At that outage, it is recommended that the following
components, at minimum, be included for inspection:
1. Consider inspecting a representative sample of components for which the remaining service
life is less than the amount of time until the next scheduled inspection outage, with an
appropriate safety factor.
The sample should represent factors such as component type, location, upstream influences,
train where located, size, operating conditions, etc. For example, results of an inspection of
one elbow closely located on the same train with two other elbows (e.g., same predicted wear
rate and remaining service life) could serve to represent all three elbows. However, three
7-2
otherwise identical elbows located on different trains should not be qualified by one
inspection.
2. A minimum of the highest-wear component found in the previous inspection, if it has not
already been replaced.
In addition, the following components should be considered for inspection:

1. Straight pipe and other components within two diameters downstream of any component
replaced in the previous inspection, or two diameters upstream if the replaced component
was an expander or expanding elbow.
2. Susceptible piping components immediately downstream of control valves and orifices that
showed wear from previous outage inspections for trending of the measured wear.
3. Areas that have experienced problems at other plants since the previous inspection.
4. Components on lines with two-phase flow conditions.
5. To confirm predictions, consideration should also be given to periodically inspecting
previously repaired and replaced components, unless the replacement components are
fabricated of a FAC-resistant material.
It is recommended that the user monitor plant design and operational changes between scheduled
inspection outages and update the susceptibility analysis (see Section 5) and the FAC analysis as
appropriate.
If inspection results are unexpected and inconsistent with predictions, the reasons for those
inconsistencies should be investigated. An updated FAC analysis should be performed, and
additional inspections conducted and material determinations made as appropriate.
The above process for follow-on inspections should be repeated for the life of the plant.
7.2 Longterm Monitoring
Longterm monitoring can be performed for lines with significant structural margins and non-
aggressive operating conditions of plants that have optimized their feedwater chemistry. It is
recommended that some locations on these lines be inspected every few years to ensure that
unexpected damage has not occurred and significant structural margins still remain. The
following locations should be considered for these inspections:
1. A minimum of the highest-wear component found in the previous inspection, if it has not
already been replaced.
2. Susceptible piping components immediately downstream of control valves and orifices that
showed wear from a previous outage.
3. Any line with two-phase flow conditions
4. Areas that have experienced problems at other plants since the previous inspection.
5. The sample should represent factors such as component type, location, upstream influences,
train where located, size, operating conditions, etc.
7-3
7.3 Outage Documentation
It is recommended that the results of the outage inspections be documented in a calculations

package, and checked if possible by an independent engineer. This would include the inspection
results and the evaluation as to acceptability of component wear.
7-4
A
BENCHMARKING AN ORGANIZATIONS FAC
PROGRAM IN CONVENTIONAL FOSSIL PLANTS
Introduction
The following is a Benchmarking Process to assess an organizations or a plants fossil FAC

Program
Assessing the FAC Organization of a Utility
The attached form can be a self-assessment or completed by EPRI during an FAC course or
plant/system review. It involves seven results oriented, FAC influenced factors. Each of the
factors is capable of being assessed quantitatively, and, as a whole, represent an indicator
(results) by which organizations can compare their FAC programs with other organizations in the
world. Each factor relates to the optimum FAC Program developed by EPRI and published in
these Fossil Plant FAC Guidelines. It is suggested that an organization or plant make the initial
assessment with data from the last three years of information. Improvements/changes could then
be assessed on an annual basis. The Benchmarking Process will work when applied either to a
single unit/plant or across a utility system. The following factors are assessed:
A. Corporate Mandate for the Organizations FAC Program
As suggested in the EPRI FAC Guideline (Section 1.4), the optimum FAC program requires a
Corporate Mandate signed by the VP or Plant Manager responsible for the fossil plants in the
system or units in the plant. This important factor enquires whether an organization/plant has
such a Mandate, which indicates how the organization/plant will adopt the optimum FAC
program.
B. Prediction and Inspection of Feedwater Systems in Fossil Plants
This important factor relates to the percentage of units (plant or system) where a predictive
analysis (such as EPRIs CHECUP or CHECKWORKS) (see Section 5.1) has been conducted,
and where those predicted susceptible areas have been inspected. This factor has two parts: a)
focuses on the most FAC prone systems in fossil plants in feedwater systems that have all-
ferrous feedwater heaters (here it should be noted that those systems with stainless steel
feedwater heater tubing in both the LP and HP feedwater heaters have the highest priority.
Section 2.2.5), and b) those with mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems (copper alloy tubing in LP
A-1
Benchmarking an Organizations FAC Program in Conventional Fossil Plants
and/or HP). An important note here is that the weighting factor is different for all-ferrous
and mixed-metallurgy units.
C. Cycle Chemistry Control of All-ferrous Feedwater Systems
This factor also addresses the most important areas in a Fossil Plant for those systems with all-
ferrous feedwater systems (here again it should be noted that those systems with stainless steel
feedwater heater tubing in both the LP and HP feedwater heaters have the highest priority.
Section 2.2.5). The factor relates to the percentage of these units, that are operating with an
oxidizing feedwater chemistry (AVT(O) or OT) and thus indicating that single-phase FAC
should not be an active corrosion mechanism.
D. Indicator of Corrosion/FAC in All-ferrous Units (plant or system)
The factor relates to the level of iron corrosion products at the economizer inlet as this is a major
indicator of a serious corrosion or FAC problem. This factor can be assessed across a system or
for a plant/unit.
E. Indicator of Corrosion/FAC in Mixed-metallurgy Units (plant or system)
The factor relates to the level of iron corrosion products at the economizer inlet as this is a major
indicator of a serious corrosion or FAC problem. This factor can be assessed across a system or
for a plant/unit.
F. Indicator of Two-phase FAC in the LP Heater Shells (plant or system) (see

Section 2.2.2)
This factor addresses whether an organization has assessed the FAC susceptibility in the heater
shell areas (particularly the LP heater shells, with the lowest LP heater being most prone). This
can be assessed across a system or for a plant/unit. Assessment here requires at least a visual
inspection.
G. Indicator of FAC in the Heater Drain Lines (single- and two-phase FAC (plant
or system) (see Section 2.2.2)
This factor addresses whether an organization has assessed the FAC susceptibility in the drain
lines. Particularly emphasis here is on the drain lines from the lowest HP and LP heaters to the
deaerator and condenser respectively. This can be assessed across a system or for a plant/unit.
Assessment here requires a NDE inspection.
A-2
Assessment of an Organizations FAC Program
Weighting Factor Points Total
3 A. Corporate FAC Mandate

Do you have a Corporate/Plant FAC
Mandate
o Yes 0
o No 2
Sub-total (Points x Weighting)
3 B. Predictions and Inspections of FAC Prone Areas

Percentage of units (plant or system) that have had a
predictive capability applied and have had follow-up NDE inspections at
all predicted critical locations
a) Units with all-ferrous feedwater systems

o 100 % of units 0
o 70 - 99 % 1
o 50 - 69 % 2
o < 50% 3
o No all-ferrous units 0
2. b) Units with mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems

o 100 % of units 0
o 50 - 99 % 1
o < 49% 2
o No mixed-metallurgy units 0
A-3
3 C. Cycle Chemistry Control of All-Ferrous Feedwater Systems

What is percentage of units with all-ferrous feedwater systems
that operate with either AVT(O) or OT
o 100 % of units 0
o 70 - 99 % 1
o 50 - 69 % 2
o < 50% 3
2 D. Corrosion/FAC in Units with All-Ferrous Feedwater Systems

What is percentage of units with all-ferrous feedwater systems that have
iron levels at the economizer inlet consistently less than 2 ppb during
normal operation
o 100 % of units 0
o 70 - 99 % 1
o 50 - 69 % 2
o < 50% 3
2 E. Corrosion/FAC in Units with Mixed-Metallurgy Feedwater Systems

What is percentage of units with mixed-metallurgy feedwater systems that
have iron levels at the economizer inlet consistently less than 5 ppb during
normal operation
o 100 % of units 0
o 50 - 99 % 1
o < 49% 2
o No mixed-metallurgy units 0
A-4
1 F. Corrosion/FAC in LP Heater Shells

What is percentage of units (all-ferrous and mixed-metallurgy) where the
LP heater shell has been at least visually inspected (fiber optics or
physically)
o 100 % of units 0
o 50 - 99 % 1
o < 49% 2
1 G. Corrosion/FAC in Drain Lines

What is percentage of units (all-ferrous and mixed-metallurgy) where the
heater drain lines have been inspected using NDE
o 100 % of units 0
o 50 - 99 % 1
o < 49% 2
Total
A-5
Rating Systems as a Function of Feedwater Metallurgy
Rating System for an Organization with both All-ferrous and Mixed-

Metallurgy Feedwater Systems
Excellent/World Class <7

Very good 8-12
Good 13-19
Average 20-32
Below Average > 33
Rating System for an Organization with only All-ferrous Feedwater

Systems
Excellent/World Class 6
Very good 7-12
Good 13-18
Average 19-29
Below Average > 30
Rating System for an Organization with only Mixed-Metallurgy

Feedwater Systems
Excellent/World Class 6
Good 7-10
Average 11-14
Below Average > 15
A-6
B
BENCHMARKING AN ORGANIZATIONS HEAT
RECOVERY STEAM GENERATOR DEPENDABILITY
PROGRAM
Introduction
EPRIs Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Tube Failure Reduction Program/Cycle
Chemistry Improvement Program (HTFRP/CCIP) is conducted at organizations combined cycle
plants. Alternatively it can be conducted at a central location so that staff members from a
number of plants can attend. The HTFRP/CCIP provides information on:
HRSG tube failures (HTF) mechanisms and root causes
Cycle chemistry influenced HTF
Thermal transient/cycling influenced HTF including FAC
How to optimize the cycle chemistry in the feedwater and evaporator circuits to avoid HTF
How to identify the locations where thermally driven HTF could occur
How to monitor thermal transients.
Overall the program is designed to help an organization avoid HTF and to identify the precursors
to damage and HTF.
Organizations frequently ask how good or bad is their overall HRSG dependability program on a
world ranking. To answer these questions, EPRI developed the HRSG Dependability
Benchmarking Process.
Much thought has been given to the Benchmarking topic, and the current assessment approach
was developed during the initial 20 HTFRP/CCIP workshops conducted with members of
EPRIs HRSG Dependability Program. It will provide an assessment for an organization of its
overall approach to HRSG reliability.
The Benchmarking process is to assess overall HRSG Dependability. The FAC factors are B, C,
D, E, and F.
B-1
Benchmarking an Organizations Heat Recovery Steam Generator Dependability Program
Assessment of an Organizations HRSG Dependability
3 A. Total number of HTF over the last three years
0 0
1-2 1
3-5 2
5-10 3
>10 4
3 B. Number of chemically influenced HTF over

last three years
(Flow-accelerated corrosion, corrosion fatigue,
hydrogen damage, acid phosphate corrosion,
caustic gouging, pitting)
0 0
1-2 1
3-5 2
5-10 3
>10 4
3 C. Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation and Control.

What percentage of the EPRI Core level do you have?
See Table B-1 for Core Level.
100% 0
90-99% 1
70-89% 2
<70% 3
2 D. Is reducing agent used in the feedwater (during

Operation and/or shutdown)?
Yes 1
No 0
B-2
2 E. What is level of iron in feedwater (generally

during steady operation)?
<5 ppb 0
5-10 ppb 1
11-20 ppb 2
>20 ppb 3
Dont know 3
2 F. What is level of iron in LP Drum (generally

during steady operation)?
<5 ppb 0
5-10 ppb 1
11-20 ppb 2
>20 ppb 3
Dont know 3
2 G. Has temperature monitoring been conducted

on LP Economizer, Superheater and Reheater
during Startup, Shutdown and Operation to
identify damaging thermal transients
(using specially installed thermocouples)
Yes, all three 0

Yes, on two 1
Yes, on one 2
No 3
1 H. Do you have written Action Plans to address

Root causes of HTF or potential HTF?
Yes 0
No 1
B-3
1 I. Do you have written Action Plans to address

damaged tubing or potential damage tubing?
Yes 0
No 1
Total
Rating System
World Class <5

Very Good 6-10
Above Average 11-25
Average Program 26-40
Below Average Program 41-45
Poor 46-55
B-4
Table B-1
Supplementary Information for Factor C
Core Monitoring Parameters (Minimum level of instruments for all plants/units)

(all instruments should be on-line and continuously monitored)
Parameters Measurement Locations
Cation Conductivity Condensate Pump Discharge

Condensate Polisher Effluent (if installed)
Feedwater (or economizer inlet)
Drum Blowdown (each drum)
Main steam or reheat steam
Specific Conductivity Makeup

Drum Blowdown (each drum)
pH Drum Blowdown (each drum)
Dissolved Oxygen Condensate Pump Discharge
Feedwater (or economizer inlet)
Drum Downcomer (Drum unit on OT)
Sodium Main steam or reheat steam
Phosphate Drum Blowdown (each drum using a

phosphate treatment)
Silica Makeup
B-5
Export Control Restrictions SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER
with the specific understanding and requirement that RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE
responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable WRAPPING MATERIAL.
U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations is being under-
BY OPENING THIS SEALED PACKAGE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO
taken by you and your company. This includes an obligation NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED PACKAGE TO EPRI
to ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder who AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE REFUNDED.
is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted
access under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and 1. GRANT OF LICENSE
regulations. In the event you are uncertain whether you or 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:
your company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI
(I) your company (at any site owned or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or other related entities; and
Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it is your (III) a consultant to your company or related entities, if the consultant has entered into a contract agreeing not to
obligation to consult with your companys legal counsel to disclose the package outside of its organization or to use the package for its own benefit or the benefit of any party
determine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may other than your company.
make available on a case by case basis an informal assessment This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement between
of the applicable U.S. export classification for specific EPRI most U.S. EPRI member utilities and EPRI. Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility License
Intellectual Property, you and your company acknowledge Agreement may get one on request.
that this assessment is solely for informational purposes and 2. COPYRIGHT
not for reliance purposes. You and your company This package, including the information contained in it, is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is protected by
acknowledge that it is still the obligation of you and your United States and international copyright laws.You may not, without the prior written permission of EPRI, reproduce,
company to make your own assessment of the applicable translate or modify this package, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare any derivative work based on this package.
U.S. export classification and ensure compliance accordingly. 3. RESTRICTIONS
You and your company understand and acknowledge your You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this package to any person or organization, or use the information
obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the contained in this package, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unless
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of such use is with the prior written permission of EPRI.You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized
EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in violation disclosure or use of this package. Except as specified above, this agreement does not grant you any right to patents,
of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or regulations. 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 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 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-
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with ate United States and foreign government approvals.
major locations in Palo Alto, CA, and Charlotte, NC, 7. CHOICE OF LAW
was established in 1973 as an independent, non-profit 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.
center for public interest energy and environmental
8. INTEGRATION
research. EPRI brings together member organizations, You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement
the Institute's scientists and engineers, and other 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-
leading experts to work collaboratively on solutions ten consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.
to the challenges of electric power. These solutions
span nearly every area of power generation, delivery,
and use, including health, safety, and environment.
EPRI's members represent over 90% of the electricity Programs: 1008082
generated in the United States. International Boiler Life and Availability Improvement
participation represents over 10% of EPRI's total Boiler and Turbine Steam and Cycle Chemistry
R&D program. Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Dependability
2005 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power Research
Together...shaping the future of electricity Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
TOGETHER...SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America
Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

EPRI Guide Lines FAC

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EPRI Guide Lines FAC

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Guidelines for Controlling Flow-Accelerated

Corrosion in Fossil and Combined Cycle Plants

Please read the License Agreement

M AT E the Wrapping Material.

Final Report, March 2005

EPRI Project Manager

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

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

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

This report was prepared by

This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

Results & Findings

Challenges & Objectives

Applications, Values & Use

1 INTRODUCTION TO FAC AND THE FAC GUIDELINES......................................................1-7

2 FAC MECHANISM AND EXAMPLES IN CONVENTIONAL AND COMBINED CYCLE

2.2.3 FAC in Conventional Fossil Plants with Mixed-Metallurgy Feedwater

3 OVERVIEW OF FAC PROGRAM FOR FOSSIL AND COMBINED CYCLE/HRSG

Step 6 - Repair and Replacement ....................................................................................3-7

4 IMPLEMENTING THE FAC ROAD MAP ...............................................................................4-7

5 INSPECTION-BASED ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................5-7

5.4.3 Through-Insulation Inspections ..............................................................................5-7

6 OPTIMIZE FEEDWATER CHEMISTRY IN CONVENTIONAL FOSSIL AND HRSG

Step 2 - Baseline Monitoring ............................................................................................6-7

7 PERFORM LONGTERM MONITORING AND INSPECTIONS ..............................................7-7

A BENCHMARKING AN ORGANIZATIONS FAC PROGRAM IN CONVENTIONAL

B BENCHMARKING AN ORGANIZATIONS HEAT RECOVERY STEAM

Figure 1-1 Schematic of Typical FAC Locations in an HRSG....................................................1-7

Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines

1.1 History of FAC Occurrences

Plant Date Location

S. M. de Garona (Spain) December 1989 Feedwater

Loviisa Unit 1 (Finland) May 1990 Feedwater

Millstone Unit 2 November 1991 Reheater drain

Almaraz Unit 1 (Spain) December 1991 Extraction steam

Sequoyah Unit 2 March 1993 Extraction steam

Fort Calhoun April 1997 Extraction steam

Mihama Unit 3 August 2004 Feedwater

Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines

60% of Utilities Report FAC (60%, 40%)

Economizer Inlet Tubing* 25% (22%)

Heater Drain Lines*+ 52% (32%, 10%)

Piping Around BFP* 25% (16%)

Tubesheet/Tubes in HP Heaters* 11% (12%)

Piping to Economizer Inlet Header* 35% (11%)

Deaerator Shell+ 14% (11%)

Shell Side of LP Heaters+ 7%

Plant Location Temp. Feedwater pH Oxygen Feedwater

A Elbow 360 F NH3/N2H4/ low All-

B Elbow near NH3/N2H4 8.80 - low All-

C Downstream 456 F NH3/N2H4 8.75 very low All-

D-M EI tubes Final Feed NH3/N2H4 9.00 - very low All-

Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines

Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines

1.2 Background of Developed EPRI Technology for FAC Control

Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines

Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines

1.3 Mechanism of FAC in Fossil Plants.

1.4 Corporate FAC Program Overview

Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines

Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines

Review and incorporation of industry experience provides a valuable supplement to plant

Introduction to FAC and the FAC Guidelines

1.5 How Good is My FAC Program?