Appendix A.

VGB - Classification of thermal ageing and creep

Typical image Ageing class Description of microstructure ageing

New or unaged microstructure

0 No presence of carbides, neither on grain
boundaries nor inside the grains

Slightly aged microstructure

1 Slightly globularized pearlite or bainite with the

presence of carbides on the grain boundaries. Virgin
ferrite grains

Moderately aged microstructure

2 Deteriorated pearlite/bainite grains with limited
presence of carbides inside ferrite grains

Strongly aged microstructure

3 Deteriorated microstructure with carbides fully

dispensed in a ferrite matrix. Further deterioration
possible through carbide growth
Typical image Creep class Description of creep damage

0 New material – virgin condition

No creep damage for material operating in creep

1
domain

2a Isolated creep cavities – low concentration

2b Isolated creep cavities – high concentration

3a Aligned creep cavities

3b Network of creep cavities

4 Micro-cracking

5 Macro-cracking
We hebben met

For me, the meeting at 14h Pakistani time / 11h Brussel time, is OK.

We have also completed review of the report with a replica expert for interpretation.

As a complement to point 2 in the email below, we can say that the interpretation of replicas requires a lot of
experience, even within the scope of the investigated material. Although a replica is a relatively small area, the
microscope research of the area means an intensive work which requires a minimum of 15 to 30 minutes. For
the selection of a picture that is included in the report, which is representative, we need to rely on the operator's
knowledge, he is only in power to make the evaluation. He is only the person able to make the evaluation. The
evaluation only based on 1 photo in the report is not possible.

The method of starting at 100X and then investigate suspect zones at 200X and 500X is correct, we do the same.
It is on X200 that we standardly detect the creep. Only affected areas will be investigated with SEM to determine
the degree of degradation. The method of systematic SEM on X1000 and X2000 in this report, in our view
anywhere, is useless and of no added value. The time spent can be better utilized in the basic investigation of
the replica.

In some cases, we have comments about the quality of the photo, such as 17RT027 / EM16 with X100 and X200,
indicating an overlay and / or poor exposure / contrast setting. No evaluation is possible on this.

We also have comments on some choices of photos from X200 to X100, for example 17RT027/EM34. Instead of
the bottom left we'd rather take the upper right to further investigate areas. This is a fundamental observation
related to the confidence of interpretation.