FLOW-ACCELERATED CORROSION
pH, and (3) the concentrations of both oxygen and
FAC and cavitation:
Identification,
assessment,
monitoring,
prevention
By Dr Otakar Jonas, PE, Jonas Inc
F
low-accelerated corrosion (FAC), also
called erosion/corrosion, and cavitation are
significant and costly damage mechanisms
common to all types of utility and indus-
trial steam cycles. There has been an increased
emphasis on correcting these problems because of
recent fatal accidents and costly material damage.
In combined-cycle (CC) plants, thinning of pipe
and damage to system components made of carbon
and low-alloy steel typically occur in the feedwater
and wet-steam sections of the cycle. Experts esti-
mate that more than half of all CC units have FAC
in the heat-recovery steam generator (HRSG) and
elsewhere. Sufficient knowledge exists to predict
and prevent these two types of damage. However,
designers and plant operating staffs must be proac-
tive to avoid it.
FAC is a mass-transfer process in which the pro-
tective oxide (mostly magnetite) is removed from the
steel surface by flowing water. Material wear rate
depends on (1) steel composition, temperature, flow
velocity and turbulence, (2) water and water-droplet
TL = F(x), FG, FT, FC, FR
Steel composition factor
Water treatment factor (pH, etc)
Temperature dependence factor
Geometry factor
Mass-transfer dependence function
Thickness loss rate
1. Material wear rate depends on many variables—
including steel composition, oxygen concentration,
flow velocity, temperature, etc (above)
2. Component shape impacts FAC, (right) with higher
numbers in chart above signifying a stronger influence
COMBINED CYCLE JOURNAL, Second Quarter 2004
oxygen scavenger. These complex relationships are
identified in Fig 1. Fig 2 shows the impact of piping
and component geometry. Most of the above factors
have strong, exponential effects on the material
wear rate, as Figs 3 thorough 7 indicate.
The FAC problem is most pronounced in carbon
steels. In these materials, even small concentra-
tions of chromium, molybdenum, and copper can
improve FAC resistance. A survey of 38 heats of car-
bon steel found that, depending on the scrap com-
position, there could be up to 0.3% Cr, which may
improve FAC resistance by up to 100-fold. Where
FAC problems cannot be resolved by changing
water chemistry, carbon steels often are replaced
by low-alloy steels, such as P11 and P22—or a weld-
deposited overlay is used.
Temperature has a pronounced effect on the FAC
wear rate (Fig 4) and when a system is inspected,
components in the 250-400F range get a prior-
ity. Flow velocity (Fig 5) has a strong effect, which
makes wet steam systems very susceptible to FAC.
Reason is that the velocity of the steam usually is
much higher than that of the water.
Water chemistry effects on FAC often are not
well interpreted. The pH of feedwater and steam
droplets must be kept above a certain threshold,
which depends on the pH agent used (Fig 6) and on
temperature. For ammonia and amines, their effect
diminishes with temperature. For feedwater treat-
ment with ammonia, a room-temperature pH above
9.5 is desirable.
Oxygen actually is good for preventing FAC.
Experience indicates that 5 ppb of oxygen in feed-
water can practically stop FAC, while excessive
concentration of oxygen scavengers accelerates it.
In most CC units that do not have copper-alloy tub-
ing, oxygen concentrations can be as high as 20 ppb
without causing any problems.
kc = 1 kc = 1 kc = 1 kc = 0.75
kc = 0.6 kc = 0.52 kc = 0.3 kc = 0.23
kc = 0.15 kc = 0.15 kc = 0.16 kc = 0.04
kc = 0.16 to 0.24
1
FLOW-ACCELERATED CORROSION
3000
½Mo steel1 Carbon steel
1000
Carbon steel2 ½Mo

Specific material wear rate, µg/cm2-hr

(A161 Gr T1)
Carbon steel2 + 300
500 µm Metco 33
Carbon steel2 Ni-Cu-Mo-Nb
+ 500 µm nickel 100
pH O2 content
18Cr stainless steel 7 500 µg/kg
9.5 <5 µg/kg 30
1Cr-½Mo
13Cr stainless steel 7 <5 µg/kg (A213 Gr T12)
ASTM designations 10
2¼Cr-1Mo steel3 1
A161 Gr T1
2
A414 Gr B
3 2¼Cr-Mo (A213 Gr T22)
1Cr-½Mo steel4 3
A213 Gr T22
4
A213 Gr T12
Cr-Mo-Ni-V steel 1

Ni-Cr-Mo-V steel
0.3
Ni-Cu-Mo-Nb steel
0.1
0 10 50 150 200 122 212 302 392 482
Specific material wear rate, µg/cm2-hr Temperature, F
3. Wear rate of various materials from erosion/corro- 4. Temperature effect on erosion/corrosion is great-
sion in 356F water at 580 psig moving at 65.6 ft/sec est in 266-366F range. Data are for neutral 580-psig
is shown for three typical pH/oxygen combinations water with an oxygen content of less than 40 µg/kg
flowing at 115 ft/sec. Exposure time is 200 hr

high turbulence, such as in the transitions from

FAC experience
Though FAC control programs have been imple-
mented in all US nuclear plants, and in many fos-
sil-fired utility and industrial plants, major dam-
age still occurs, as several references listed at the
end of this article attest. This is particularly true at
CC units, as noted earlier, generally for one or more
of the following reasons:
■ Limited experience in the design, construction,
and operation of CC plants by many OEMs, archi-
tect/engineers, and owner/operators.
■ Imperfect technical tools—that is, software—for
quantifying the effects of temperature, oxygen scav-
engers, cavitation, and water chemistry on FAC.
■ Misrepresentation of water-chemistry his-
tory and material compositions, leading to gross
errors in FAC assessment.
Any carbon- or low-alloy-steel component or pip-
ing system at a CC plant is a candidate for FAC.
These include:
■ Single-phase systems—HRSG economizers,
headers, drum liners, boiler tubes, and feedwa-
ter pipes in drums; condensate/feedwater; aux-
iliary feedwater, heater, and other drains; pump
glands and recirculation lines.
■ Two-phase systems—low-pressure (l-p) tur-
bine wet-steam extraction sections and pipes,
glands, blade rings, casing, rotors, and disks;
flashing lines to the condenser (miscellaneous
drains); feedwater-heater vents, shells, and sup-
port plates; feedwater heaters; HRSG moisture
separators; condenser shell and structure.
Where to look for FAC
HRSGs. Typical locations of FAC damage in
HRSGs is shown in Fig 8. It occurs in (1) areas of
2 COMBINED CYCLE JOURNAL, Second Quarter 2004
vertical generating tubes to headers and drums; (2)
economizers and l-p drum circuits which often oper-
ate in the peak temperature range, and (3) down-
comers, particularly the lower-header areas where
FAC can be combined with cavitation.
Use of sodium phosphate boiler-water treatment
can prevent FAC in HRSGs. However, in CC
designs where the l-p boiler serves as a heater for
the intermediate-pressure (i-p) and high-pressure
(h-p) boilers, it cannot be used. Reason: Phosphate
would concentrate in the i-p and h-p boilers and
cause other problems.
Feedwater piping. Most frequently, FAC dam-
age is found in feedwater piping with the piping-
component geometry effect following the classifica-
tion index shown in Fig 2. There have been at least
three fatal accidents caused by ruptures of thinned
pipes, none reported in combined cycles.
Deaerators. FAC thinning of deaerator piping,
partitions, and liners, and of the deaerating vessel
itself in the water outlet and steam inlet areas, are
experienced occasionally.
Condensers. Exhaust steam leaving the l-p
turbine can contain from 5 to 10% moisture and the
wet-steam velocity at the exit of the last row blades
is hundreds of feet per second, an ideal environ-
ment for FAC. Also, the moisture-droplet pH often
is suppressed. There have been many cases of con-
denser-support-structure FAC, and the iron oxides
produced by this process are a major impurity in
condensate.
Return condensate from various processes often
is contaminated with organic and inorganic impuri-
ties and carbon dioxide, which reduces its pH and
increases the likelihood of FAC. To avoid problems,
make provision for automatic dumping of bad conden-
sate or for condensate purification by ion exchange.
 FLOW-ACCELERATED CORROSION
Feedwater heaters and other heat exchangers. some significant failures, at locations downstream of
Tubes: Carbon-steel tube bundles, particularly the control valves.
tube inlets, are among the components most vul- Thermowells, sampling nozzles, and injec-
nerable to FAC. Such tubes typically are designed tion quills. These obstacles to flow can produce
with the minimum wall thickness necessary to sup- “vortex shedding” with locally high velocities lead-
port the mechanical loads because a thinner wall ing to small areas of pipe thinning caused by FAC
promotes more efficient heat transfer. Thus even or cavitation. Pipe-wall thickness should be mea-
a small reduction in wall thickness caused by cor- sured starting from these obstacles to about three
rosion can result in failure. FAC can occur on both feet downstream.
interior and exterior tube surfaces.
On the steam side of feedwater heaters, FAC
attack depends significantly on the design and the How to control FAC
moisture content of the steam. Keep in mind that An effective FAC control program begins with an
the actual moisture content of the steam extracted assessment of the propensity of different plant
from the turbine can differ from the theoretical systems and components to FAC, and also includes
moisture level because of drainage and other condi- the use of available software with water and
tions that are specific to each turbine. steam-chemistry corrections and periodic inspec-
Vessel: Thinning of the feedwater-heater pres- tions. Monitoring of iron concentration around the
sure vessel occurs mainly at the steam and drain steam cycle also is useful; elevated concentrations
nozzles and where the flow of wet steam turns. may indicate ongoing damage in a specific subsys-
This thinning is caused by direct impingement of tem.
the jet or by the deflected jet after it has struck a Inspection and NDT. After conducting a theo-
poorly designed impingement plate. Impingement retical evaluation of your CC unit’s Rankine cycle
of steam moisture has locally eroded feedwater for its propensity to FAC and cavitation attack,
heater shells almost to perforation in several fos- select several of the most susceptible components
sil-fired units. for inspection. The nondestructive examination
Internals: Feedwater heaters often contain parti- (NDE) methods typically used include ultrasonic
tioned-off areas which serve a specialized heat-trans- wall-thickness measurement and radiography of
fer purpose. These “boxes” cool the exiting drain flow small sections of equipment and piping systems
or desuperheat the entering steam, and are subject with geometries that can cause turbulence. Inspec-
to the same damage mechanism
as the vessel. In addition, when 5000 1000
500 ½Mo (A161 Gr T1)
Specific material wear rate, µg/cm2-hr

there are leaks through a box

Specific material wear rate, µg/cm2-hr

580 psig, 1Cr-½Mo

wall, the secondary flows cre- 1000 1) (A213 Gr T12)
l G rT 356F,
ated can cause rapid damage. In 500 stee 1 61 100 128 ft/sec,
drain cooling boxes, damage can n (A 50 <5 µg O2/kg
bo Mo
ar ½
occur even without leaks if there C b
is improper control of the conden- 100 o-N
50 C u-M 10
sate level. Ni- 1 2 ) 5 Carbon steel
T
Heater drains. Major prob- M o (A213 Gr 0 psig, 167F,
1Cr-½ 5.25 ft/sec,
lem areas include the drain 10 1 20 µg O2/kg
lines below the feedwater heat- )
5 2¼Cr-Mo (A213 Gr T22 0.5
ers. They often experience prob-
lems with level control valves. 0.1
1
However, even without valve
0.5
problems, these lines frequently 32.8 65.6 98.4 131.2 6 7 8 9 10 11
experience FAC because the liq- Flow velocity, ft/sec pH
uid is near saturation conditions 1000
and it may flash across the level 5. Flowing water increases mate- 500
Specific material wear rate, µg/cm2-hr

control valves. In these loca- rial loss rate exponentially with Carbon steel:
tions, FAC could be combined flow velocity. Data are for neutral 100
0 psig, 167F,
with cavitation. 580-psig/356F water with an oxy- 5.25 ft/sec
50
gen content of less than 5 µg/kg. 1Cr-½Mo
Downstream of flowmeters. (A213 Gr T12):
The piping immediately down- Exposure time is 200 hr (above) 10 580 psig,
stream of flowmeters, orifices, 5 248F, 115 ft/sec
and other restrictions has been
a source of problems because of 6. Decreasing pH increases mate- ½Mo (A161 Gr T1):
1
the increase in local velocity and rial wear, particularly below 9.2 580 psig, 248F,
0.5
local turbulence, and the suscep- (above right) 115 ft/sec
tibility to cavitation.
Downstream of control 0.1
valves. There have been a large 7. Oxygen content above 100 µg/
0 100 200 300 400 500
number of reported instances kg gives maximum steel protection Oxygen content, µg/kg
of FAC degradation, including in neutral water (right)
COMBINED CYCLE JOURNAL, Second Quarter 2004 3
FLOW-ACCELERATED CORROSION
Steam drum:
FAC, high carryover
FAC, cavitation
All: Layup corrosion,
weld corrosion cracking Stack
Internal insulation FAC
and lagging
Outlet duct

Inlet ducts

Expansion joint

Economizer:
Downcomer: FAC, pitting, corrosion
FAC, corrosion
Manway Evaporator:
Superheater: low-cycle fatigue,
stress corrosion pitting, hydrogen damage
Integral structural steel cracking, exfoliation, creep,
Expansion joint low-cycle fatigue
pvc
Flow
Inlet (p1) Outlet (p2)

8. Typical locations of FAC and other types of damage found

in HRSGs reveal that problems generally occur in regions of
p1 Orifice Vena contracta
boiler that experience high turbulence (above)
p2

9. Sharp reduction in static pressure causes the production Static Vapor

of vapor bubbles which translates to cavitation attack in com- pressure pressure (pv)
ponents that experience a high pressure drop (right) pvc

tion grids have been developed to facilitate the

ultrasonic wall-thickness measurements of typical
geometrical elements. Often neglected are piping
areas downstream of flowmeters, thermowells, and
injection quills, where both FAC and cavitation can
be active. Keep in mind that vortices generated by
the flow obstruction can travel for many feet.
Many components can be inspected during oper-
ation using x-ray techniques. However, if there is
an urgency for safety or other reasons to verify that
FAC and/or cavitation damage is not of immediate
concern, and system shutdown is not possible, a
successful hydro test of at least 50% overpressure
offers sufficient proof.
Software solutions. At least three software
packages are available for assessment of wall thin-
ning caused by FAC. These have been developed by
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo
Alto, Calif; Electricite de France (EdF), Paris; and
Siemens AG, Erlangen, Germany. Results of pre-
dictions of FAC with the use of the software have
been mixed, some realistic, some very wrong. The
main reasons for the wrong predictions include
poor representation of water chemistry in the soft-
ware (at-temperature pH, concentration of oxygen
scavenger, concentration of oxygen, and chemistry
of water droplets), oversimplification of the water-
chemistry history, and a failure to use the actual
steel composition.
4 COMBINED CYCLE JOURNAL, Second Quarter 2004
Cavitation
Cavitation is a repeated generation and collapse of
bubbles (or cavities) in a liquid because of local stat-
ic-pressure fluctuations, usually caused by changes
in flow velocity. If the pressure of a flowing liquid
decreases to below its vapor pressure—for example,
because of significant increases to the local flow
velocity—then vapor bubbles are nucleated. The
bubbles are transported downstream from the flow
disturbance, and when they reach a region of higher
pressure, they collapse suddenly and may erode any
solid material in their vicinity.
The phenomenon is predominantly mechanical
in nature, but corrosive environments do accelerate
the damage. Shock-wave emission and jet forma-
tion caused by the collapse of individual cavities are
the fundamental factors responsible for cavitation.
Tests indicate that the fatigue endurance limit of
the material is the primary parameter that controls
cavitation. Damage occurs to the surface of the com-
ponent, just downstream from the cavitation source.
Cavitation bubbles are reabsorbed within five to 10
pipe diameters. Barring any obstructions or changes
in direction, reabsorption is accomplished causing
further damage. In CC plants, cavitation damage
can occur in pumps, valves, and piping.
The effect of flow on pressure is illustrated in
Fig 9 for flow through an orifice. Note that in the

Checklist helps identify FAC, cavitation before they
become serious problems
T
here’s little reason for a plant manager to be
surprised that his or her plant is experiencing
FAC and/or cavitation damage. The majority of
combined-cycle (CC) facilities were designed and
built to meet the needs of the competitive genera-
tion market. The large number of plants ordered
in the 1999-2002 timeframe stretched the person-
nel and material resources of the entire industry.
Designs and construction work often did not get
the rigorous review and oversight that had become
a tradition in the generation industry. Mistakes were
made.
Also, many asset owners thought CC plants
so simple—typically, “just a matter of hooking up
modules on a slab of concrete and connecting gas
and electric lines”—that the detailed procedures
used for coal-fired and nuclear plants didn’t apply.
Another mistake, as plant managers know well.
One thing for certain, the industry has a wealth
of knowledge of FAC and cavitation as the many
references at the end of this article attest. This
information offers a competitive advantage to the
plant manger who takes the time to do the appro-
priate eavaluations. It helps identify areas where
FAC and cavitation already exist and where they are
likely to occur, what corrective action is warranted,
and what type of monitoring program will enable
you to avoid forced outages and the possibility of
life-threatening damage.
Assessment of the propensity of individual
systems and components to FAC and cavitation
begins with a comprehensive plant walkdown pay-
ing particular attention of areas of attack identi-
flow region immediately downstream of the orifice,
where velocity is highest, the static pressure drops
below the vapor pressure and steam bubbles form.
The change in static pressure, Δpstat, can be mea-
sured or calculated from the measured or estimated
maximum velocity in individual components using
the relationship, Δpstat = 0.5 ρ V2, here ρ is the
water density and V is the local flow velocity. This
flow-velocity effect is also called dynamic pressure
or velocity head.
294
10. Relationship between
Change in static pressure, psi
flow velocity and the
221 reduction of
static pressure can be
used to estimate the sus-
147
ceptibility to cavitation (left)
11. Susceptibility to
73.5 cavitation of various
materials used in pow-
0 erplant systems illus-
0 65.6 131.2 196.8 trates relative resistance
Flow velocity, ft/sec of stainless steel (right)
COMBINED CYCLE JOURNAL, Second Quarter 2004
FLOW-ACCELERATED CORROSION
fied in the adjacent text. Your evaluation should
consider the combined effects of component
geometry, flow velocity, water and steam proper-
ties, material composition, water chemistry, and
operating experience.
Consider these objectives for your evaluation:
■ Find and select components to be inspected.
■ Interpret NDE results.
■ Identify root causes of wall thinning.
■ Determine inspection interval and safety
margin.
■ Determine effects on cycle iron transport.
■ Recommend engineering solutions.
Project tasks to consider include:
■ Preliminary assessment (drawings, flow
velocities, cycle design, experience, leaks).
■ Component details and actual installation
(walkdown, steel composition, history).
■ Final system and/or component description
and operating and inspection/maintenance
history.
■ Water-treatment history and local chemistry.
■ Computer modeling, calculation of erosion/
corrosion rates, contributions of individual
effects.
■ Monitor cavitation noises and the rate of wall-
thinning.
Finally, document your conclusions and recom-
mendations in a formal report for executive review
and implement engineering solutions approved by
the asset owner. Regular follow-up inspections of
susceptible systems and components are recom-
mended.
Cavitation, thoroughly researched in the 1960s
and 1970s, is a damage mechanism well known in
the marine industry and among pump manufactur-
ers. In steam power systems, it has been mostly a
problem with valves and boiler feed pumps which
can be damaged within a few minutes of operation
when deprived of proper suction head. Such head
normally is provided by the deaerator, typically
located more than 30 ft above the pump. Problems
in the 1990s at nuclear units prompted EPRI to
70
Brass
Rate of weight loss, mg/hr
60
50 Mild steel
High-tensile brass
40
Gunmetal
30
Monel
20
Stainless steel
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Test time, hr
5
FLOW-ACCELERATED CORROSION
include cavitation effects in its computer. Unlike
FAC, which is mostly confined to carbon-steel
components, cavitation can attack any material,
including stainless steels.
Some piping and other component damage that
had been attributed to FAC actually was caused by
cavitation—or possibly by an interaction of cavita-
tion and FAC, because the flow-velocity and turbu-
lence effects are similar and the surface damage
often looks the same.
Any system handling water at near saturation
conditions is susceptible to cavitation damage. For
example, the l-p section of condensate/feedwater
systems, such as the suction of booster and boiler
feed pumps, can be close to saturation. Saturation
conditions can be approached by locally increasing
flow velocity around obstacles. Also, by reducing the
static pressure of the water in turbulent regions, or
by increasing water temperature.
Components that have been damaged by cavita-
tion include pipes, valves, orifices, pumps, feedwa-
ter-heater drains, and other feedwater and auxil-
iary water components. For example: A feedwater
pipe, believed to have been thinned by cavitation
after a quill, ruptured in a paper mill. Feedwater
approached the saturation conditions because a
leaking feedwater heater increased the water tem-
perature and the excessive pressure drop caused
by various piping-system components between the
feed pump and the drum reduced the static pres-
sure.
Management control for preventing cavitation
damage is similar to that for FAC. First, conduct a
preliminary evaluation of all cycle systems, making
sure to include an estimate of the component pres-
sure in relation to the saturation pressure under all
modes of operation. Next, schedule a walkdown of
all the systems, paying particular attention to the
noises generated by cavitation. Finally, inspect for
thinning of selected susceptible components.
Where possible, the actual pressures, tempera-
tures, and flow velocities should be measured or oth-
erwise determined and used in the cavitation evalu-
ation. When susceptible components are identified,
consider installing acoustic emission monitoring
instrumentation to track cavitation long-term. Typi-
cal areas where cavitation may occur include: HRSG
downcomers, particularly near the lower headers
and in economizer-to-drum feedwater pipes; sections
of pipe after thermowells and similar obstructions;
control valves; condensate, booster, and feedwater
pumps; and pump suction pipes.
As a guide to estimating susceptibility to cavita-
tion, use Fig 2, which was developed for FAC, and
include pressure and temperature information. Fig
10 presents the relationship between the reduction
of static pressure and flow velocity, which also can
be used to estimate susceptibility to cavitation.
Material properties. Unlike FAC, all materials
used in steam-cycle water systems are susceptible
to cavitation damage (Fig 11). The material prop-
erty which correlates best with the susceptibility
to cavitation is the fatigue limit. However, it is not
clear whether, for various aqueous environments,
6 COMBINED CYCLE JOURNAL, Second Quarter 2004
the cavitation correlates with air-fatigue or corro-
sion-fatigue properties.
Water chemistry probably does not play a
major role in the cavitation damage found in steam
cycles. However, effects of concentrated impuri-
ties have been measured and have confirmed that
a corrosive environment can accelerate cavitation.
While cavitation is most often caused by the col-
lapse of steam bubbles, it can also be caused by
gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen, and volatile
chemicals coming out of solution in water and sub-
sequently redissolving.
Recommendations
■ Every CC and cogeneration plant should have
a formal program for preventing FAC and cavi-
tation, starting with an early design review that
considers all the parameters influencing FAC
described in Fig 1.
■ Where organic water-treatment chemicals—
such as amines, dispersants, and oxygen scav-
engers—are used, evaluate their effects and the
effects of their decomposition products.
■ When using any FAC software, play special atten-
tion to the representation of pH at temperature,
pH of water droplets, concentration of the oxygen
scavenger, and the concentration of oxygen.
■ Inspect piping downstream of all orifices, ther-
mowells, sampling nozzles and chemical injection
quills, and leaking valves. Also check HRSG blow-
down lines, downcomers, headers, drum liners,
feedwater pipes, saturated steam pipes, steam
separation systems, turbine extraction pipes and
extraction valves, feedwater heater drain valves
and shells, feedwater piping, condensers, and
boiler-feed-pump recirculation lines.
■ Select a reliable and accurate method for identi-
fying wall thinning. Your best options: ultrasonic
wall-thickness measurements, x-ray of piping and
other components, pulsed eddy-current technique,
and the magneto-strictive sensor technique.
Finally, remember that cavitation can be detect-
ed on-line by listening to the noise produced by
the collapsing steam or gas bubbles using acoustic
microphones or by acoustic emission instrumenta-
tion. It is important to establish critical locations for
periodic long-term monitoring. Continuous in-line
monitoring is an alternative. CCJ
References
Section I: Erosion/corrosion
1. “Low-Temperature Corrosion Problems in Fossil Power Plants—
State of Knowledge Report,” TR-1004924, Electric Power
Research Institute, December 2003
2. O Jonas and L Machemer, “Tight Control of Cycle Chemistry Key
to Successful Commissioning,” Combined Cycle Journal, First
Quarter 2004
3. O Jonas, “Safety Issues in Fossil Utility and Industrial Steam Sys-
tems,” Materials Performance, May 2001. See also http://www.
steamcycle.com/safety_issues_pdf.htm
4. O Jonas, “Erosion-Corrosion of PWR Feedwater Piping – Sur-
vey of Experience, Design, Water Chemistry, and Materials,”
NUREG/CR-5149, ANL-88-23, US Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion, March 1988
5. G Cragnolino, et al, “Review of Erosion-Corrosion in Single-Phase
Flows,” NUREG/CR-5156, ANL-88-25, US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, April 1988
6. S Bush, “The Effects of Erosion-Corrosion on Power Plant Piping,”
 FLOW-ACCELERATED CORROSION
Proceedings of the 59th General Meeting of the National Board
of Boiler & Pressure Vessel Inspectors, Volume VII, No. 1, May
1990
Panel Discussions of
Special Interest to
7. “Flow-Accelerated Corrosion in Power Plants,” TR-106611, Elec-
tric Power Research Institute, 1996
8. V K Chexal, et al, “Recommendations for an Effective Flow-
Accelerated Corrosion Program,” NSAC-2021, Electric Power

HRSG USERS
Research Institute, November 1993
9. “Guidelines for Controlling Flow-Accelerated Corrosion in Fossil
Plants,” TR-108859, Electric Power Research Institute, June
1998

Section II: Effects of water chemistry on erosion-corrosion at the upcoming

10. O Jonas, “Steam, Chemistry, and Corrosion in the Phase Tran-
sition Zone of Steam Turbines,” TR-108184, Electric Power
Research Institute, February 1999
11. O Jonas, “Use of Organic Water Treatment Chemicals,” VGB
Conference, Organische Konditionierungs-und Sauerstoffbinde-
INTERNATIONAL
mittel (Lahnstein, Germany), 1994
12. O Jonas, “Controlling Oxygen in Steam Generating Systems,”
Power, May 1990
13. O Jonas, “New Oxygen Scavengers,” Jonas Inc, 1990
WATER
14. O Jonas, “Reduction of Feedwater Iron by Minimizing Oxygen
Scavengers,” Jonas Inc, October 1997
Section III: Inspection methods and codes, erosion-corrosion
CONFERENCE
15. “NDE of Ferritic Piping for Erosion-Corrosion,” NP-5410, Elec-
tric Power Research Institute, September 1987
16. “Assessment of the Pulsed Eddy Current Technique: Detecting
Pittsburgh
Flow-Accelerated Corrosion in Feedwater Piping,” RS-109146,
Electric Power Research Institute, January 1998
October 17-21
17. “Assessment of Magnetostrictive Sensor Technique: Detecting
Flow-Accelerated Corrosion in Feedwater Piping (Revision 1),”
RS-108449-R1, Electric Power Research Institute, February
1998
Current Ideas for Chemistry Control and
18. O Jonas, “Steam Generation in Corrosion Tests and Standards,” Operation of HRSGs
ASTM MNL 20, June 1995
19. “Requirements for Examination of Class 1, 2, and 3 Systems for Participants include Dave Daniels, Irv
Detection of Pipe Wall Thinning Due to Single-Phase Flow-Accel-
erated Corrosion,” ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code (Section Cotton, and Luis Carvalho
XI, Subsection IWH), to be published
20. “Examination Requirements for Pipe Wall Thinning Due to
Single-Phase Erosion and Corrosion,” ASME Boiler & Pressure
Vessel Code (Section XI), Case N-480
Pros and Cons of Amine Use in
Section IV: Other references on erosion-corrosion Industrial and Utility Power Plants
21. O Jonas, “Alert: Erosion-Corrosion of Feedwater and Wet Steam
Piping.” Power, February 1996. See also www.steamcycle.com/
Participants include Mike Rootham, Jim
plant_alert.htm
22. O Jonas, “Control Erosion-Corrosion of Steels in Wet Steam,”
Bellows, Bill Moore, and Albert Bursik
Power, March 1985. See also www.steamcycle.com/control_of_
erosion_corrosion
23. H G Heitmann and W Kastner, “Erosion-Corrosion in Water- Other Presentations of
Steam Cycles—Causes and Countermeasures,” VGB Kraftwerk-
stechnik 62, March 1982 Interest to HRSG Users
24. W Kastner, et al, “Calculation Code for Erosion-Corrosion
Induced Wall Thinning in Piping Systems,” Nuclear Engineering
❍ Monitoring and control in steam
and Design 119, 1990
25. L Goyette and G Zysk, “Material Sampling in Erosion-Corrosion
generation cycles
Programs,” Codes and Standards in a Global Environment (PVP Vol
259), American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1993
❍ New concepts in EDI design
Section V: Cavitation ❍ Biofouling control in cooling
26. R Knapp, J Daily, and F Hammitt, “Cavitation,” McGraw Hill
Book Company, New York, 1970
systems
27. I Pearsall, “Cavitation,” M&B Monograph ME/10, Mills & Boon, ❍ Use of heat-tolerant RO mem-
London, 1972
28. J Tullis, “Choking and Super Cavitating Valves,” Journal of branes for condensate polishing
the Hydraulic Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,
December 1971
29. C Preece, “Cavitation Erosion,” Treatise on Materials Science and
Technology (Vol 16), Academic Press Inc, New York, 1979
30. R Mahini, B Chexal, and J Horowitz, “Developing Predictive
LISTEN
Models for Cavitation Erosion,” Codes and Standards in a Global
Environment (PVP Vol 259), American Society of Mechanical LEARN
Engineers, 1993
31. “A Method to Predict Cavitation and the Extent of Damage in
Power Plant Piping,” TR-102198 and TR-102198-T2, Electric
PARTICIPATE
Power Research Institute, 1993
32. J P Tullis, “Cavitation Guide for Control Valves,” NUREG/CR- Complete program at
6031, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 1993
33. “Guidelines for Prevention of Cavitation in Centrifugal Feed www.eswp.com/water
Pumps,” GS-6398, Electric Power Research Institute, 1989
34. A Bruthman, “Feedwater Heater Design Standards and Prac- (click on brochure link)
tices,” Proceedings of the Feedwater Heater Workshop, Electric
Power Research Institute, July 1979

COMBINED CYCLE JOURNAL, Second Quarter 2004 7