Erosion in Nuclear Piping Systems
The collapse of the bubbles causes high local pressures and
Harold M. Crockett
EPRI,
1300 West W. T. Harris Boulevard,
Charlotte, NC 28262
e-mail: hcrockett@epri.com
Jeffrey S. Horowitz
Consultant
3331 Avenida Sierra,
Escondido, CA 92029
e-mail: jshorowitz@aol.com
Various mechanisms degrade components and power piping in
nuclear power plants. The mechanism with the greatest conse-
quence has been flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC). FAC has
caused ruptures and leaks and has led to numerous piping re-
placements. United States utilities use a combination of EPRI
guidance, software, and aggressive inspection programs to deal
with FAC. However, current technology does not detail guidance
for erosive forms of attack including, cavitation erosion, flashing
erosion, droplet impingement, and solid particle erosion. These
forms of degradation have caused shutdowns, and leaks have be-
come a maintenance issue. This brief will present a description of
erosive damage mechanisms found in nuclear power plants.
关DOI: 10.1115/1.4000509兴
1 Introduction
Most nuclear power plants have inspection programs in place to
control flow-accelerated corrosion 共FAC兲. FAC is a well-known
phenomenon that has been extensively documented 关1兴. FAC is a
corrosion process caused by the dissolution of the normally pro-
tective oxide layer. FAC usually occurs in piping and components
of the extraction steam, heater drains, and feedwater systems. In
fact, FAC is the predominant degradation mechanism in these sys-
tems. Notable examples of the consequences of FAC were the
failures at Surry Unit 2 in 1986 and in Mihama Unit 3 in 2004.
In addition to FAC, various erosion mechanisms also affect
these systems. These mechanisms have increased maintenance ac-
tivities and have caused leaks, piping failures, loss of condenser
vacuum, and reactor trips. This brief will provide an overview of
the erosive mechanisms normally encountered.
2 Mechanisms Considered
Four erosive mechanisms have been found to cause degradation
in nuclear piping 关2兴. These mechanisms will be introduced.
2.1 Cavitation. Cavitation damage may occur when there is a
flowing liquid stream that experiences a drop in pressure followed
by a pressure recovery. Such a pressure drop 共i.e., the difference
between the upstream pressure and the downstream pressure兲 can
occur in valve internals where the flow has to accelerate through a
small area. As the fluid moves through the restricted area, the fluid
velocity increases and the pressure decreases, as shown by the
momentum equation 共i.e., Bernoulli’s theorem兲. If the local pres-
sure passes below the vapor pressure at the liquid temperature,
then small bubbles are formed. When the downstream pressure
rises above the vapor pressure, these bubbles 共or cavities兲 col-
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received November 30,
2007; final manuscript received August 21, 2009; published online January 29, 2010.
Assoc. Editor: Noel O’Dowd.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright © 2010 by ASME
Downloaded 24 Mar 2010 to 203.153.33.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
lapse.
very high local water jet velocities. If the collapsing bubbles are
close enough to a solid surface, damage to that surface will result.
The collapse of the numerous bubbles generates noise and vi-
bration. Most often, cavitation causes most of its damage with
vibration 共e.g., cracked welds, broken instrument lines, and loos-
ened flanges兲. The erosion caused by cavitation also generates
particles that will contaminate the process fluid
Cavitation has caused leaks and thinning in power piping and
damage to valve internals. It has also been linked to spurious
reactor trips and to increased valve maintenance. Finally, the use
of an unsuitable valve 共i.e., one that cavitates兲 may result in vi-
bration of the valve internals. These vibrations contribute to the
noise generated and also cause loosening of parts and mechanical
fatigue of valve components or attached piping.
Cavitation occurs in such diverse situations as hydroelectric
turbines, ship propellers, and pump internals. However, only cavi-
tation in valves and piping components is discussed in this brief.
Also note that cavitation has been extensively studied for many
years and there is a very large body of literature dealing with
various aspects of the issue including a number of well-known
textbooks on the subject. Although there is still disagreement
about the precise nature of the damage mechanism, cavitation is
well enough understood that it can be dealt with by competent
design practices.
For power plant systems, cavitation most often occurs in con-
trol valves 共i.e., high-pressure drop valves兲 and downstream of
orifices in liquid-filled systems.
For convenience, cavitation is often divided into a number of
regimes to describe the extent of the cavitation process that oc-
curs. It should be noted that different investigators use slightly or
completely different definitions for generally similar terms.
There are several empirical methods available to predict the
cavitation regime as a function of flow rate, fluid properties, and
geometry for most common situations. For example, Ref. 关3兴 was
the basis for the cavitation model used in the CHECWORKS™ cool-
ing water application. A detailed discussion of these methods is
beyond the scope of this brief.
According to Ozol 关4兴, most cavitation problems in nuclear
plants are caused by either:
• valves improperly sized for a given application or
• improper operation 共most often throttling兲 of properly sized
valves
• improper types of valves being used to control flow 共e.g.,
butterfly valves兲
Damage caused by cavitation is normally rapid and localized.
The damaged surface is usually very rough and irregular.
2.2 Flashing Erosion. Flashing occurs when a high-pressure
liquid flows through a valve or an orifice to a region of greatly
reduced pressure. If the pressure drops below the vapor pressure,
some of the liquid will be spontaneously converted to steam. The
downstream velocity will be greatly increased due to a much
lower average density of the two-phase mixture. The impact of the
high-velocity liquid on piping or components creates flashing
damage.
When flashing occurs, the flow is choked. This is the maximum
possible flow is passing through the restriction at the given up-
stream pressure. This regime is also known as supercavitation.
The only way to increase the flow is to increase the upstream
pressure. When this state is reached, the sound velocity in the
two-phase mixture has been reached. This is exactly analogous to
sonic velocity in a gas passing through a convergent nozzle. Note,
however, that in the case of two-phase mixtures, the sonic velocity
of the mixture is only a small fraction of the sound speeds in
either of the pure liquid and the pure vapor phases.
In addition to erosion, flashing will result in unstable chaotic
conditions in the downstream pipe. Such conditions may cause
APRIL 2010, Vol. 132 / 024501-1
 harmful vibrations to occur.
It should be noted that in cavitation, the downstream pressure is
normally above the local vapor pressure so that the bubbles col-
lapse. In flashing situations, the pressure is below the local vapor
pressure so that the bubbles do not collapse and are transported
downstream. Also there are ways of preventing cavitation from
occurring 共e.g., changing the design of the control valve兲, but if
the downstream pressure is below the vapor pressure of the in-
coming stream, then flashing will occur.
Flashing normally occurs downstream of valves or orifices in
liquid lines that are going to the condenser or possibly down-
stream of control valves in cascading drains. Other possible loca-
tions would include downstream of leaking valves located be-
tween system pressure and the condenser.
There is considerably less technical literature covering flashing
than cavitation 关2兴. Although there is some information available
from valve manufacturers, the subject of flashing erosion, particu-
larly in the downstream piping, is rarely mentioned.
Damage due to flashing can be found in and downstream of
pressure-reducing valves. The form of the damage is usually re-
ferred to as “smooth” or “polished” 关2兴.
As a practical matter, flashing erosion is dealt with by valve
manufacturers by installing erosion-resistant materials for valves
expected to be in severe service that may include flashing down-
stream of the most restricted part of the valve. Unfortunately,
usually flashing erosion in piping is not considered until a leak or
a pipe rupture occurs.
2.3 Liquid Impingement Erosion. Liquid impingement ero-
sion 共LIE兲 or droplet impingement is caused by the impact of
high-velocity droplets or liquid jets. Normally, LIE occurs when a
two-phase stream experiences a high-pressure drop 共e.g., across
an orifice on a line to the condenser兲. When this occurs, there is an
acceleration of both phases with the liquid velocity increasing to
the point that if the liquid strikes a metallic surface, damage to the
surface will result. Droplet speeds greater than about 100 m/s
共⬃330 ft/ s兲 have been shown to damage carbon steel items. The
main distinction between flashing and LIE is that in flashing the
fluid is low quality 共mostly liquid with some steam兲, and with
LIE, the fluid is high quality 共mostly steam with some liquid兲. In
contrast to flashing damage, surfaces damaged by LIE are nor-
mally very rough and irregular.
There are two main practical situations in which LIE has been
studied extensively because of problems experienced. These are
the erosion of steam turbine internals and the erosion of high-
velocity airplane components 共particularly canopies兲 by rain 关2兴.
Erosion in steam turbines has been studied since the 1920s. The
materials of principal interest are high alloy steels and more exotic
materials. Most of the steam turbine erosion problems have been
solved through redesign and improved materials, although prob-
lems may appear when new turbine designs are employed. A good
treatment of erosion in steam turbines is found in Ref. 关5兴.
Although conceptually LIE downstream of a valve and LIE in a
steam turbine would seem similar, there is a significant difference.
In a turbine, as work is extracted from the steam, the pressure
decreases until it reaches a point where droplets nucleate and are
carried downstream. Some of these droplets will impact and be-
come attached to nonrotating portions of the turbine, especially
the low-pressure stationary blades. Some of this water is then
re-entrained and flows downstream. Extensive research has dem-
onstrated that the very small droplets in the stream do not cause
the damage to the low-pressure turbine blades. Rather it is the
re-entrained, larger drops that cause the bulk of the damage. In the
flow downstream of a valve or orifice, there probably is not a
similar mechanism to separate and re-entrain the flow.
Erosion in airplane components in rain became an issue in the
1940s as the speed of aircraft 共particularly military aircraft兲 ex-
ceeded about 550 km/h 共350 miles/h兲. At this speed, a heavy rain
damaged even metallic forward facing components.
Particular problem areas included windshields, canopies, and
024501-2 / Vol. 132, APRIL 2010
Downloaded 24 Mar 2010 to 203.153.33.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
radomes. Because of the necessity for having these materials
transparent either to light or radio waves, nonmetallics have been
used, thus, this experience is not of direct interest to the power
industry.
Unfortunately, there is only a small amount of literature directly
related to experience with LIE in power piping. The most relevant
literature deals with the steam turbine experience, but as noted
above, most of the experimental work involved high alloy steels.
2.4 Solid Particle Erosion. In contrast to the three mecha-
nisms described above, solid particle erosion 共SPE兲 is damage
caused by particles transported by the fluid stream rather than by
liquid water or collapsing bubbles. While the exact damage
mechanism of SPE is not fully understood, if hard large particles
are present at sufficiently high velocities, damage will occur. In
contrast to liquid impingement erosion, the necessary velocities
for SPE are quite low. Kosel 关6兴 quoted this velocity as being
1 m/s 共3.3 ft/s兲 for ductile materials.
Surfaces damaged by SPE have a very variable morphology.
Kosel 关6兴 stated that
Manifestations of SPE in service usually include thinning of
components, a macroscopic scooping appearance following
the gas/particle flow field, surface roughening 共ranging from
polishing to severe roughening, depending on particle size
and velocity兲, lack of the directional grooving characteristics
of abrasion, and in some but not all cases, the formation of
ripple patterns on metals.
Solid particle erosion has been studied for years as harmful
effects have been experienced in a large number of engineering
situations, including
• steam turbines
• helicopter rotors
• gas turbines
• pipelines and valves transporting particulate material
• fluidized bed boilers
• rocket motor nozzles
Of particular concern to the power generation industry is the
damage SPE causes in steam turbines. McCloskey et al. 关5兴 dis-
cussed steam turbine concerns for fossil turbines. In this case, the
particles have been found to be corrosion products from the up-
stream heat exchanger surfaces that have exfoliated and been
transported downstream.
SPE has been found in several areas of nuclear plants particu-
larly in the steam generator blowdown system of pressurized wa-
ter reactors 共PWRs兲 and in raw water systems. SPE has been
found to cause leaks, as well as damage valve internals.
In understanding SPE, one fact must be understood: SPE and
liquid impingement erosion, though seemingly alike, are very dif-
ferent. Heymann 关7兴 stated
It might easily be assumed that solid particle erosion would
have many similarities to liquid impingement erosion, since
both involve the impact of small, discrete bodies. This is not
the case, however, because the damage mechanisms, the ef-
fects of impact variables, and the response of materials are
all quite different.
Although SPE has been studied extensively over the past 50
years, there are still areas of technical controversy remaining 关8兴.
This is not surprising, as there are a large number of variables. For
convenience, these variables have been divided into three broad
categories 关2兴 as
• impingement variables including particle velocity, angle of
incidence, particle concentration, and particle rotational
speed
Transactions of the ASME
 • particle variables including particle shape, size, hardness,
and friability 共i.e., the ease of fracture兲
• material variables—all material properties including, hard-
ness, work hardening behavior, and microstructure
3 Conclusion
This technical brief has summarized the erosive mechanisms
that have been found in nuclear power plants. EPRI is conducting
research in this area to improve the safety and reliability of
nuclear power plants.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the members of the CHECWORKS™
Users Group who have contributed to EPRI’s efforts in this area.
References
关1兴 Chexal, B., Horowitz, J., Dooley, B., Millett, P., Wood, C., Jones, R., Boucha-
court, M., Remy, F., Nordmann, F., Saint Paul, P., and Kastner, W., 1998,
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded 24 Mar 2010 to 203.153.33.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
“Flow-Accelerated Corrosion in Power Plants,” EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, EPRI
Report No. TR-106611-R1.
关2兴 2004, “Recommendations for Controlling Cavitation, Flashing, Liquid Droplet
Impingement, and Solid Particle Erosion in Nuclear Power Plant Piping Sys-
tems,” EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, Report No. 1011231.
关3兴 Wilby Associates, 1993, “A Method to Predict Cavitation and the Extent of
Damage in Power Plant Piping,” Dec., EPRI Report Nos. TR-103198-T1 and
TR-103198-T2.
关4兴 Ozol, J., 1987, “Experiences With Control Valve Cavitation Problems and
Their Solutions,” EPRI Power Plant Valves Symposium, Kansas City, MO,
Aug. 25–26, EPRI Paper No. CS/NP-5878-SR.
关5兴 McCloskey, T. H., Dooley, R. B., and McNaughton, W. P., 1999, “Turbine
Steam Path Damage: Theory and Practice—Volume 2: Damage Mechanisms,”
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, EPRI Report No. TR-108943-V2.
关6兴 Kosel, T. H., 1992, “Solid Particle Erosion,” ASM Handbook: Friction, Lubri-
cation, and Wear Technology, Vol. 18, ASM International, Metals Park, OH.
关7兴 Heymann, F., 1992, “Liquid Impingement Erosion,” ASM Handbook: Friction,
Lubrication, and Wear Technology, Vol. 18, ASM International, Metals Park,
OH.
关8兴 Mills, D., 1991, “Pipeline Wear,” Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and
Design, J. J. McKettta and W. A. Cunningham, eds., Marcel Dekker, New
York.
APRIL 2010, Vol. 132 / 024501-3