Technical Paper

BR-1898

Effect of Temperature, Alloy

Composition and Surface Treatment
on the Steamside Oxidation / Oxide
Exfoliation Behavior of Candidate
A-USC Boiler Materials

Authors:
J.M. Sarver
J.M. Tanzosh

Babcock & Wilcox

Power Generation Group, Inc.
Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.

Presented to:
The Seventh International
Conference on Advances in
Materials Technology for Fossil
Power Plants

Date:
October 22-25, 2013

Location:
Waikoloa, Hawaii, U.S.A.
EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE, ALLOY COMPOSITION AND SURFACE TREATMENT
ON THE STEAMSIDE OXIDATION / OXIDE EXFOLIATION BEHAVIOR OF
CANDIDATE A-USC BOILER MATERIALS
J.M. Sarver and J.M. Tanzosh

Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc., Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.

BR-1898
Presented to:
The Seventh International Conference on Advances in Materials Technology for Fossil Power Plants
October 22-25, 2013
Waikoloa, Hawaii, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT (#11)

During the Boiler Materials for Ultrasupercritical Coal Power Plants program, sponsored by the United States (U.S.)
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO), the steamside oxidation and oxide
exfoliation behavior of candidate alloys has been thoroughly evaluated in steam at temperatures between 620°C and
800°C (1148°F and 1472°F) for times up to 10,000 hours. The results from this test program indicate that the
oxidation rates and oxide morphologies associated with steamside oxidation are a strong function of the
crystallographic lattice structure and the chromium content of the material. Oxide exfoliation correlates to oxide
thickness. The time required to reach the critical oxide thickness for exfoliation can be estimated based on oxidation
kinetic relationships. For austenitic stainless steels, shot peening is effective in reducing steamside
oxidation/exfoliation, but the efficacy of this technique is limited by the operating temperature. Nickel-based alloys
exhibit very low oxidation/exfoliation rates, but have a propensity to form aluminum/titanium oxides along near-
surface grain boundaries.

INTRODUCTION

The Boiler Materials for Ultrasupercritical Coal Power Plants program is being performed to determine the most
suitable materials of construction for a high-efficiency, low-emissions, advanced ultra-supercritical (A-USC) fossil
boiler. An important consideration in the selection of materials for any boiler, and particularly for an A-USC boiler
that will operate at steam temperatures up to 760°C (1400°F), is steamside oxidation. Steamside oxidation has three
primary detrimental aspects, all of which are exacerbated at the higher temperatures planned for A-USC operation:
1) oxidation leads to wall loss which can eventually compromise structural integrity, 2) oxidation can act as an
insulating barrier to heat transfer and cause local overheating of tubing, and 3) spalled oxides can plug tube bends
and/or erode steam turbines [1]. Because the control of steamside oxidation is an important factor in the successful
operation of an A-USC boiler, one task of the program is devoted to the study of the steamside oxidation of
candidate alloys.

STEAMSIDE OXIDATION KINETICS

The methodologies employed in the program to evaluate the steamside oxidation behavior of candidate A-USC
materials have been previously described [2-7]. Materials displayed parabolic steamside oxidation behavior, and
oxidation rates increased with increasing temperature. For ferritic materials, oxidation rates dropped dramatically
once the chromium concentration of an alloy exceeded ~10%. For austenitic materials, oxidation rates displayed a
similar drop for alloys with chromium concentrations in excess of ~19%. The steamside oxidation parabolic rate
constants for materials tested in the program are displayed in Fig. 1 as a function of alloy chromium concentration.
The majority of the data displayed in Fig. 1 are from 4,000 hour exposures. Those data sets designated as “LT”
indicate that the materials were exposed to a long-term (10,000 hour) test. All of the parabolic rate constants
displayed in Fig. 1 were calculated from descaled weight loss data.

1
 1.00E-09

1.00E-10

1.00E-11
kp (g2cm-4sec-1)

1.00E-12 620C LT
650C
1.00E-13 750C
750C LT
1.00E-14
800C
1.00E-15

1.00E-16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
% Cr

Figure 1: Steamside oxidation parabolic rate constants (kp) as a function of alloy chromium content.

The oxidation behavior of the ferritic and austenitic materials displayed in Fig. 1 is consistent with steamside
oxidation behavior described by other researchers [8]. For iron-based ferritic and austenitic materials, the steamside
oxidation behavior is dominated by the chromium content of the alloy. Other alloying elements (such as silicon in
ferritic alloys) also influence steamside oxidation behavior, but their impact is minor in comparison to the direct
correlation between the chromium concentration of an alloy and its oxidation behavior. Alloy 214 (a nickel-based
alloy containing only 16.3% chromium) exhibited the lowest oxidation rate in Fig. 1. This alloy contains 4.4%
aluminum (Al) and formed a very protective aluminum oxide instead of a chromium oxide when tested at 750°C
(1382°F).

OXIDE MORPHOLOGY

The oxide morphologies exhibited by the alloys exposed to steam between 620°C and 800°C (1148°F and 1472°F)
in the program fall into four main categories: 1) low chromium ferritic alloys, 2) ferritic alloys containing 9-12%
chromium, 3) austenitic stainless steels containing less than ~20% chromium, and 4) austenitic stainless steels
containing greater than ~20% chromium and chromium-containing nickel-based/nickel-rich alloys. The
characteristics of each category are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1: Morphological characteristics of steam-formed oxides.

Alloy Type Oxide Morphological Characteristics
Outer – Fe oxide containing no Cr
Low Cr Ferritic
Inner – Fe oxide containing ~3% Cr
Outer – Fe oxide containing no Cr
9-12% Cr Ferritic Inner – Fe oxide containing alternating layers of high Cr
and low Cr
Outer – Fe oxide containing essentially no Cr (this layer
<20% Cr Austenitic SS often exfoliates)
Inner – Cr/Fe oxide containing significant Ni
Ni-rich/Ni-based Austenitic Single layer Cr oxide

2
The steam-formed oxide morphologies that exist on ferritic materials and austenitic stainless steels have been
described in detail previously [8-10]. Prior to the program, the steamside oxidation behavior of several nickel-
rich/chromium-rich candidate A-USC alloys had not been well characterized since many of these materials are
relatively new and/or have not been used in high temperature steam environments. Four key alloys that fall into this
category are Alloy 740, Alloy 282, Alloy 230 and Alloy CCA617, the compositions of which are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Composition of Ni-rich/Cr-rich Candidate A-USC alloys.

Wt %
Material
C Si Fe Cr Ni Mo W Nb Other
0.75 Al
740 0.034 0.450 1.02 24.31 49.45 0.52 1.83 19.63 Co
1.58Ti
10.35 Co
282 0.068 <0.05 0.35 19.63 Bal 8.56 <0.01 2.21 Ti
1.41 Al
0.22 Co
230 0.110 0.39 1.25 22.42 Bal 1.31 14.27 0.05
0.33 Al
11.57Co
CCA617 0.059 0.17 0.87 21.73 55.0 8.71 0.26 0.03 1.23Al
0.41Ti

Single layer chromium oxides formed on all four of the materials listed in Table 2, and all four materials exhibited
low oxidation rates at all temperatures evaluated. Scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive spectroscopy
(SEM/EDS) images of Alloy 740 (shown in Fig. 2) reveals additional microstructural features typically associated
with these alloys.

Cr O

Al Ti
Figure 2: SEM/EDS images for Alloy 740 (10,000 hours at 750°C) showing: 1) a Cr oxide protective layer, 2) near-
surface Al oxide grain boundary penetrations, 3) Ti oxide layers above and below the Cr oxide layer.

The thickness of the chromium oxide for these alloys was 1-2 µm at 650°C (1202°F) after a 4,000 hour exposure,
increasing only to ~6 µm after a 4,000 hour exposure at 800°C (1472°F) or a 10,000 hour exposure at 750°C
(1382°F). Figure 2 also shows that areas of titanium oxide exist immediately below the chromium oxide layer.
Aluminum oxide is found along the near surface grain boundaries of these alloys, extending from just below the
chromium oxide layer to a depth that is below the titanium oxide layer.

The oxide features in Fig. 2 can be explained thermodynamically through the use of an Ellingham diagram. At
750°C (1382°F), the partial pressure of oxygen (pO2) below which chromium will not oxidize is ~10-31 atmosphere.

3
It can be assumed that this is the pO2 at the bottom of the chromium oxide layer. The pO2 below which titanium and
aluminum will not oxidize at 750°C (1382°F) is ~10-36 atmosphere and ~10-40 atmosphere, respectively. These
values represent the pO2 that exists at the bottom of the oxidation zones for these elements shown in Fig. 2.

The maximum depths of aluminum oxide penetration as a function of time and temperature are displayed in Fig. 3.
The penetration depth increases with temperature and increases parabolically with time, both of which are indicative
of a diffusion-controlled process. As described above, the penetration depths presented in Fig. 3 are actually the
depths below the metal surface at which the pO2 is ~10-40 atmosphere. For the program, the pO2 of the steam
environment at 750°C (1382°F) was ~3x10-7 atmosphere. Thus, Fig. 4 presents the pO2 profile across the near-
surface cross section of Alloy 740 shown in Fig. 2 (Alloy 740 exposed to steam at 750°C for 10,000 hours).

Obviously, the chromium oxide that forms on the surface of these alloys provides an effective barrier that limits, but
does not stop, the ingress of oxygen into these alloys. Mechanistically, once the chromium oxide layer has formed,
aluminum oxide will form along grain boundaries once the pO2 exceeds ~10-40 atmosphere. As the diffusion of
oxygen continues and the oxygen concentration at a given cross sectional depth exceeds a pO2 of ~10-36, titanium
oxide will also form.

50

45 650C
Maximum Depth of Al Oxide Grain Boundary

40 750C
800C
35
Penetration (µm)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Exposure Time (hrs)

Figure 3: Maximum depth of Al oxide grain boundary penetration (depth of pO2 = ~10-40 atm) for Alloy 740.

4
 0 Steam-Oxide Interface
Depth Below Steam-Oxide Interface (µm)

Cr Oxide
5

10
Ti Oxide and Al Oxide Formation
15

20

25
Al Oxide Formation

30
-10 -20 -30 -40

log pO 2 (atm)

Figure 4: Cross sectional view of the oxidation of Alloy 740 in 750°C steam after 10,000 hours showing regions of
oxide stability as a function of pO2.

Using the aluminum oxide penetration depths from tests performed at 750°C and 800°C (1382°F and 1472°F), an
activation energy of ~117 kJ/mol was derived. A section of Alloy 740 tubing that was exposed to steam at ~655°C
for ~10,000 hours in the Niles test loop exhibited aluminum oxide grain boundary penetrations that were up to ~9
µm deep (Fig. 5). Since the DOE/OCDO steamside oxidation testing is performed at atmospheric pressure, the
results from the Niles Alloy 740 tubing suggest that pressure has an influence on this phenomenon.

Figure 5: Aluminum oxide grain boundary penetration observed on Alloy 740 exposed for ~10,000 hours to steam at
~655°C in the Niles test loop.

After 10,000 hours of exposure in steam at 750°C (1382°F), Alloy exhibited penetrations up to 24 µm deep, while
the other three alloys listed in Table 2 exhibited maximum penetration depths of 12-14 µm. The reason that Alloy
740 has a greater propensity to form grain boundary aluminum oxide penetrations than the other alloys has not yet
been ascertained. It is important to account for the formation of these penetrations when considering tubing
corrosion allowances. After 100,000 hours at 750°C (1382°F), the outer chromium oxide on these alloys is expected

5
to be <20 µm thick, but the penetrations are expected to extend to a depth that is ~90 µm below the bottom of the
chromium oxide layer. Thus, the structural wall thickness will be reduced by ~100 µm (~4 mils) from steamside
oxidation after 100,000 hours at 750°C.

OXIDE EXFOLIATION

Oxide exfoliation is understood to be due to a combination of oxide growth stresses and thermal stresses resulting
from coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) differences between an oxide and its base metal, or between two
different oxide layers [11], as well as the bond strength between two oxide layers. Over the past few years, steam-
formed oxide exfoliation has caused the failure of several austenitic stainless steel boiler tubes due to exfoliated
oxide blockage of tight bends. A 2011 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) survey of U.S. utilities showed that
more than 50% of respondents experienced exfoliation-related damage in their power plants [12].

In the program, exfoliation rates were calculated for materials tested between 620°C and 800°C (1148°F and
1472°F) by comparing the weight gain and descaled weight loss of identical coupons removed after times ranging
from 1,000 hours to 10,000 hours. Following an exposure, the removed coupons from a given material were
weighed and their weight gain was calculated. Then, one of the coupons was descaled to remove the oxide and
weighed to determine the coupon weight loss. During the oxidation process, all weight gain is due to the addition of
oxygen. Conversely, all of the weight loss determined following descaling is due to the loss of metal atoms that had
been converted to oxide (metal volatilization is not considered in this methodology). Using the weight loss value and
assuming an oxide composition (as determined through SEM/EDS analysis), the theoretical weight gain that the
coupon would experience due to the addition of oxygen can be calculated. The difference between the theoretical
weight gain and the weight gain that the coupons actually experienced describes the weight of oxide that has
exfoliated from the coupon. The exfoliation rate is calculated by dividing the weight of exfoliated oxide by the
exposure time.

Figs. 6 and 7 display plots of exfoliation rate as a function of measured oxide thickness for ferritic and austenitic
materials, respectively. Since there are several inaccuracies that are inherent with direct oxide thickness
measurements (significant oxide thickness variations over the surface of a coupon, missing oxide thickness due to
oxide exfoliation, etc.), oxide thickness values in Figs. 6 and 7 were calculated from kp values and an assumed oxide
density.

These figures clearly demonstrate that oxide exfoliation correlates with oxide thickness. These figures also show
that the oxide thickness at which exfoliation occurs is significantly greater for ferritic materials than for austenitic
materials, a finding that is in agreement with observations from operating boilers. EPRI has proposed a critical
thickness for oxide exfoliation (tcrit exfol) of 225 µm for ferritic material P91, and 46 µm for austenitic stainless steel
347H based on a failure mechanism due to accumulated strain within the oxides [13]. From Figs. 6 and 7, the tcrit
exfol in steam at temperatures between 620°C and 800°C (1148°F and 1472°F) is ~80 µm for ferritic materials and
~15 µm for austenitic materials.

6
 Ferritic Material
1.60E-05

650C
1.40E-05
750C
1.20E-05
800C
Exfoliation Rate (mg-cm-2-sec-1)

1.00E-05 620C LT

8.00E-06

6.00E-06

4.00E-06

2.00E-06

0.00E+00

-2.00E-06
1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Calculated Oxide Thickness (µm)

Figure 6: Oxide exfoliation rate as a function of calculated oxide thickness for ferritic materials showing a tcrit exfol of
~80 µm.

Austenitic Material
1.20E-05

650C
1.00E-05 750C
800C
Exfoliation Rate (mg-cm-2-sec-1)

8.00E-06 620C LT
750C LT
6.00E-06

4.00E-06

2.00E-06

0.00E+00

-2.00E-06
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
Calculated Oxide Thickness (µm)

Figure 7: Oxide exfoliation rate as a function of calculated oxide thickness for austenitic materials showing a tcrit exfol
of ~15 µm.

Based on activation energies calculated for the steamside oxidation of candidate A-USC materials during the
program, the temperature at which tcrit exfol would be reached after a 100,000 hour exposure was calculated and is
presented in Table 3. Table 3 is limited to only ferritic and austenitic stainless steel materials since materials that

7
form single layer chromium oxide layers (nickel-rich, chromium-rich alloys) have not displayed oxide exfoliation in
steam at temperatures up to 800°C (1472°F).

Table 3: Temperature at which tcrit exfol would be reached after 100,000 hours of exposure based on a tcrit exfol of 80
µm for ferritic material and 15 µm for austenitic material.
Temperature at which tcrit exfol would be Reached
Material %Cr After 100,000 hrs of Exposure
°C °F
Ferritic
SAVE12 9.25 573 1064
P92 8.93 575 1067
MARB2 9.16 656 1212
Austenitic
347HFG 18.41 637 1179
SUPER304H 19.1 660 1220
304H 18.83 677 1250

SHOT PEENING

One method to mitigate steamside oxidation exfoliation that has been successfully implemented on austenitic
stainless steels is shot peening. Shot peening has historically been used to impart compressive residual stresses on
the surface of structural parts, generally to improve fatigue resistance. However, relative to oxidation, it is the cold
work of the material surface that is responsible for improved oxidation resistance [14]. The resulting cold worked
microstructure permits fast diffusion paths for chromium atoms to the surface of the material, allowing a thin,
protective chromium oxide to form quickly and more extensively than without peening [6].

Steamside oxidation testing of shot peened austenitic stainless steels was initially performed as part of the program
at 750°C and 800°C (1382°F and 1472°F). At both of these temperatures, shot peening imparted no discernible
benefit with respect to oxidation rate or oxide exfoliation rate. Microhardness analyses revealed that the near-surface
cold work imparted by the peening process was rapidly relieved when the material was exposed to steam in excess
of 750°C (1382°F) [7].

A subsequent steamside oxidation test was performed at 620°C (1148°F), and coupons from Types 347H and 304H
stainless steels shown in Table 4 were include in this test. These materials were provided as 50.80 mm outside
diameter (OD) x 5.59 mm wall thickness tubing with inside diameter (ID) surfaces that had been shot peened. To
study the oxidation/exfoliation behavior of peened vs. non-peened tubing, sections of the peened tubes were given
927°C (1701°F) heat treatment for 24 hours in a protective atmosphere. Microstructural analysis indicated that the
grain size at the ID of the peened plus stress-relieved (peened+SR) material was the same as the grain size at the
tubing midwall. Near-surface hardness readings confirmed that the cold work imparted by the peening process was
completely removed by the heat treatment. Steamside oxidation test coupons were then prepared from the peened
and peened+SR tube sections.

Table 4: Chemical composition, oxidation rate (kp) and exfoliation rate of 347H and 304H
in the peened and peened+SR conditions exposed to steam at 620°C for 10,000 hours.
Chemical Analysis (Wt %) Exfoliation
kp
Material Condition 2 -4 -1 Rate
Si Fe Ni Cr Nb (g cm sec )
(mgcm-2sec-1)
Shot Peened 6.95E-13 6.06E-07
347H 0.35 Bal 11.08 17.33 0.49 Shot Peened
2.30E-12 1.16E-06
+SR
Shot Peened 1.26E-14 2.01E-08
304H 0.34 Bal 8.1 18.22 --- Shot Peened
4.36E-13 7.97E-07
+SR

8
The oxidation rates (expressed as kp) and exfoliation rates exhibited by the peened and peened+SR coupons are
displayed in Table 4. These results clearly show the beneficial effect of shot peening on steamside oxidation and
exfoliation at 620°C (1148°F), even after 10,000 hours of exposure. As expected, the 304H, which contained nearly
1wt% more chromium than the 347H, exhibited the lowest oxidation and exfoliation rates for both peened and
peened+SR conditions.

The physical appearance of the ID surface of these coupons, displayed in Fig. 8, indicate that the peened surfaces are
more uniform than the peened+SR surfaces, and appear to have experienced less oxide exfoliation. Cross sectional
SEM/EDS evaluations of 347H and 304H are displayed in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively.

347H 304H
Peened+SR Peened Peened+SR Peened

Figure 8: ID surface of 347H and 304H in the Peened+SR and Peened conditions.

347H Peened+SR 347H Peened

Cr Cr

Figure 9: Cross sectional SEM/EDS of 347H in the Peened+SR and Peened conditions.

304H Peened+SR 304H Peened

Cr Cr

Figure 10: Cross sectional SEM/EDS of 304H in the Peened+SR and Peened conditions.

Figs. 9 and 10 indicate that the peened+SR materials contained only their chromium-rich inner oxide, the outer iron
oxide having already exfoliated. The thickness of the inner oxide suggests that the exfoliated outer oxide possessed a
variable thickness with some locations having an outer oxide thickness of at least 50 µm. Since Fig. 7 predicts that
oxide exfoliation occurs on austenitic stainless steels once the oxide thickness reaches ~15 µm and since the outer
oxide thickness typically is approximately equal to the inner oxide thickness, the inner oxide thickness displayed by

9
the peened+SR 347H and 304H suggest that multiple exfoliation events have occurred at these thick inner oxide
locations. The peened materials, on the other hand, appear to exhibit a very thin single layer chromium oxide.

The results from the peened and peened+SR austenitic stainless steel coupons tested at 620°C (1148°F) for 10,000
hours are in agreement with other results on the effect of surface cold work on steamside oxidation [15], and
indicate that shot peening is a viable method to significantly reduce the steamside oxidation / oxide exfoliation rates
of these materials.

CONCLUSIONS

The steamside oxidation and oxide exfoliation behavior of candidate A-USC materials have been characterized at
temperatures between 620°C and 800°C (1148°F and 1472°F) and exposure times up to 10,000 hours. The oxidation
rate was found to be a strong function of the chromium content and crystallographic structure. The oxidation rate
was significantly reduced for ferritic materials containing greater than ~10% chromium and austenitic materials
containing greater than ~19% chromium.

The oxides that formed on the candidate A-USC alloys consisted primarily of iron oxides and chromium oxides, the
exact composition and proportions of which were dependent upon alloy chemistry. Nickel-rich alloys containing
aluminum and titanium formed a single layer thin chromium oxide and exhibited low oxidation rates; however, they
also formed titanium oxides and grain boundary aluminum oxides below the chromium oxide layer. The sub-surface
depth of the titanium and aluminum oxides increased with temperature and increased parabolically with time,
indicating that this phenomenon was controlled by oxygen diffusion into the alloys.

Results from steamside oxidation tests suggest that a critical oxide thickness exists for oxide exfoliation. For ferritic
materials the critical thickness is ~80 µm, and for austenitic materials the critical thickness is ~15 µm. The
steamside oxidation and oxide exfoliation behavior of shot peened austenitic stainless steels displayed dramatic
improvement at 620°C (1148°F), even after a 10,000 hour exposure.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank members of the DOE/OCDO consortium for sharing their invaluable insights during
this program. The authors would also like to thank Bill Gwynne, John Jevec, Barry Conrad, Bob Pelger, and Sandy
Ulbricht at Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. for their assistance in performing the oxidation testing
and SEM/EDS analyses.

REFERENCES

[1] Sarver, J. M. et al, Boiler Materials for Ultrasupercritical Coal Power Plants – Task 3, Steamside Oxidation of
Materials, NETL/DOE, 2003. USC T-5.
[2] Sarver, J. M., Tanzosh, J. M. and Mohammed, S., “Steam Oxidation Testing of Candidate Ultrasupercritical
Boiler Materials”, 28th International Conference on Coal Utilization, Clearwater, Florida, March 9-13, 2003.
[3] Sarver, J. M. and Tanzosh, J. M., “Preliminary Results from Steam Oxidation Tests Performed on Candidate
Materials for Ultrasupercritical Boilers”, EPRI International Conference on Materials and Corrosion
Experience for Fossil Power Plants, Isle of Palms, South Carolina, November 18-21, 2003.
[4] Sarver, J. M. and Tanzosh, J. M., “Steamside Oxidation Behavior of Candidate USC Materials at 650°C and
800°C”, 8th Ultra-Steel Workshop, Tsukuba, Japan, July 21-22, 2004.
[5] Sarver, J. M. and Tanzosh, J. M., “An Evaluation of the Steamside Oxidation of Candidate USC Materials ate
650°C and 800°C”, 4th International Conference on Advances in Materials Technology for Fossil Power Plants,
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, October 25-28, 2004.
[6] Sarver, J. M. and Tanzosh, J. M., “The Steamside Oxidation Behavior of Candidate USC Materials at
Temperatures Between 650°C and 800°C”, 5th International Conference on Advances in Materials Technology
for Fossil Power Plants, Marco Island, Florida, October 3-5, 2007.

10
[7] Sarver, J. M. and Tanzosh, J. M., “Characterization of Steam-formed Oxides on Candidate Materials for USC
Boilers”, 6th International Conference on Advances in Materials Technology for Fossil Power Plants, Santa Fe,
New Mexico, August 31 – September 3, 2010.
[8] Wright, I. G. and Dooley, R. B., “A Review of the Oxidation Behavior of Structural Alloys in Steam”,
International Materials Reviews, Vol. 55, No. 3 (2010), pp. 129-167.
[9] Viswanathan, R., Sarver, J. M. and Tanzosh, J. M., “Boiler Materials for Ultra-Supercritical Coal Power Plants
– Steamside Oxidation”, Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2006), pp. 225-
274.
[10] Fry, A., Osgerby, S. and Wright, M., Oxidation of Alloys in Steam Environments, NPL Report MATC(A)90,
September, 2002.
[11] Wright, I. G. et al, “Progress in Prediction and Control of Scale Exfoliation on Superheater and Reheater
Alloys”, EPRI International Conference on Boiler Tube and HRSG Tube Failures and Inspections, San Diego,
California, November 2-5, 2004.
[12] Shingledecker, A. P. et al, “Managing Steam-Side Oxidation and Exfoliation in USC Boiler Tubes”, Advanced
Materials & Processes, Vol. 171, No. 3 (2013), pp. 23-25.
[13] Wright, I. G. and Sabau, A., Development of an Integrated Model to Predict and Control Oxide Scale
Exfoliation: Exfoliation Calculations for Ferritic, Austenitic, and Fine-Grained Austenitic Alloys – 2009
Progress, EPRI, Palo Alto, California, December, 2009, 1017625.
[14] Sato, T. et al, “The Practical Application and Long-Term Experience of New Heat Resistant Steels to Large
Scale USC Boilers”, 4th International Conference on Advances in Materials Technology for Fossil Power
Plants, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, October 25-28, 2004.
[15] Shingledecker, A. P. et al, State of Knowledge for Advanced Austenitics, EPRI, Palo Alto, California,
December, 2009, 1020241.

Copyright © 2013 Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

LEGAL NOTICE/DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared by Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. (B&W PGG) pursuant to a Grant
partially funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Instrument Number DE-FG26-01NT41175 and the
Ohio Coal Development Office/Ohio Department of Development (OCDO/ODOD) under Grant Agreement Number
CDO/D-00-20. Although the information presented in this work is believed to be reliable, this work is published
with the understanding that (B&W PGG) and the authors are supplying general information and are not attempting
to render or provide engineering or professional services. Neither B&W PGG nor any of its employees make any
warranty, guarantee, or representation, whether expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy,
completeness or usefulness of any information, product, process, method, or apparatus discussed in this
work, including warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular or intended purpose. Neither B&W
PGG nor any of its officers, directors, or employees shall be liable for any losses or damages with respect to
or resulting from the use of, or the inability to use, any information, product, process, method, or apparatus
discussed in this work.

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department
of Energy and/or the State of Ohio; nor do the views and opinions of authors expressed herein necessarily state or
reflect those of said governmental entities.

NOTICE TO JOURNALISTS AND PUBLISHERS: Please feel free to quote and borrow from this report, however,
please include a statement noting that the U.S. Department of Energy and the Ohio Coal Development Office
provided support for this project.

11